Falcon 1 - Post Failure thread

[braddock]

Benny - 30/3/2006  5:00 AM
I am sorry this might be common knowledge but is it true that SpaceX is already manufacturing
the Falcon 5 ? Or are they waiting for a successfull first attempt of Falcon 1?

Falcon 9 will be the next vehicle; there are no slated Falcon 5 launches as of now, although SpaceX still talks about it.  

I asked about this on the press call last friday.  They are building a lot of engines right now, have Falcon 9 hardware in various states "on the floor" of their plant, and were expecting to friction stir weld the main first stage tank together in the next four to five weeks.  I specifically asked her if Falcon 9 was "in production", but she said that she would really call it "in development", since "production" to her meant pumping out multiple copies.  She initially said that the engines were kinda in production, because they were building so many of them now for testing, but she later wrote me saying it was better to say they were in development.

I mentioned much of this in the article http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4395

That is admittedly a pretty vague state to be in, and that was before the failure.  

Falcon 9 first flight is slated for Q2 of '07.   Although, if you go back to old press releases, you can see that SpaceX was always a little optimistic about launch dates.  I like this release, in MAY of 2003, announcing the first engine test, and stating:
"Falcon is expected to be ready for launch by late 2003"
I think they've learned a lot since then...it is a cruel world for the ambitious.

[Tap-Sa]

braddock - 26/3/2006  8:19 AM

It somehow wouldn't surprise me at all if SpaceX took the damaged payload, sent it over to the Air Force academy to patch it up, and tried again with it on the house.  

Looks like this won't happen. According to this article in Nature the AF crew inspected photos of the satellite and deemed it FUBAR.

[aero313]

blueguitarbob - 30/3/2006  12:16 AM

No matter how many simulations and static tests they do, regulatory officials will always remember how Falcon 1 failed: crashing intact, with a load of propellant, a few hundred feet downrange. Although a coral reef was probably damaged, it happened at a remote site in the middle of the ocean, away from population and the media. After the failure, there was sadness over the lost opportunity, loss of the payload; it was disappointing, but not tragic. The only people who really knew about it were a few thousand rocket geeks (myself included). However, at any launch location in the states, last week's failure would have been a horrendous public relations disaster, with possible loss of life. Cable would be showing video 24/7, calling for Elon's head. The company might have folded. When you think about it, its a miracle for SpaceX that their first flight was forced to launch at Omelek. Its the best place for them, at this stage in development.

Not sure how you figure things would have been any different launching from Vandeberg or the Cape.  Range safety operations at those sites take into account exactly the sort of failure that happened here.  There's a considerable caution hazard corridor established for each flight, and new vehicles get an even more generous buffer zone.  Range safety assessments take into account the vehicle's acceleration rate, flight path, worst case turn capability (most rockets will break up if too severe a turn is commanded), and many other factors in setting limit lines.  The SpaceX thrust termination concept (as opposed to explosive destruct) was already approved at VAFB.  Had this failure happened at Vandenberg, the outcome would have been the same - with the possible exception of increased availability of launch video.  This, by the way, is EXACTLY the reason why the Air Force wouldn't let Elon overfly SLC-4 while there was a Titan on the pad.  More importantly, Elon was told this long before he committed to using SLC-3W, so he doesn't have any justification for his bitching about it.

SpaceX just doesn't have the resources to conduct the testing that it would take to guarantee a high probability of success at first flight, like NASA does. They have to try it for real, and correct after failure. That works, of course, but it's rather hard on the people around the launch pad. Elon's been saying this since day one, but I don't think the range safety implications sunk in. Well, they are pretty obvious now. No CYA-minded regulator is going to allow Falcon 1, 5, or 9 to fly on their range until they have a decent number of launches under their belt. If I were in their shoes, I can't say that I would take the risk, either.

First, this is one of the reasons why a NASA-bought Pegasus costs more than a Falcon 1.  Elon keeps holding up the $20M cost of a Pegasus mission, but a lot of that is the cost of additional flight assurance effort.  Second, the requirements for flying out of the range at Kwaj are pretty much the same as those at Vandenberg or the Cape.  Any new vehicle is subject to the same scrutiny and requirements in any case.  The safety review process assumes a failure at any point in the trajectory and determines the caution hazard corridor that results.  This goes for a brand new Falcon 9 or a proven Titan IV.  Given the toxic propellants and solid strapons, a Titan IV failure is potentially much more severe than that of any of Elon's proposed vehicles.  The safety review assumes the Titan can blow up at any point in the trajectory from ignition through orbital insertion.  The debris pattern is assessed and the hazard corridor is determined.  The Missile Flight Control Officer (MFCO - the guy with his finger on the button) watches the trajectory display and sends the flight termination command if the rocket crosses the pre-determined limit lines.   In the case of a Titan, one launch constraint is wind direction, since you don't want the toxic cloud to be blown on shore in the case of a destruct action.

Since Falcon 5 and 9 are significantly different from Falcon 1, it won't be sufficient for SpaceX to fly a few successful F1 missions out of Omelek as a demonstration. Maybe if Falcon 1 would have flown perfectly the first time... but that opportunity is gone. No, people are going to want to see Falcon 5 and 9 fly successfully, too. The only place where that has a hope of happening, in my opinion, is Kwaj. It's the only place where they have the freedom to fail, without significant consequence... besides money.

You're wrong about that.  The reasons they went to Kwaj in the first place are 1) fewer conflicts with other range users (though they did get delayed several times by Missile Defense Agency missions) and 2) the need to reach a low inclination orbit for their Mayalsian customer.  Can't do that from either VAFB or the Cape.

And here's the catch-22: when you've done that, what's the attraction for launching anywhere else? Why not just continue to do everything at Kwaj?

Cause Kwaj is a PITA to get to and operate from.  Ask Elon's DARPA customers about having to spend Thanksgiving on Kwaj for one aborted launch attempt and then again just before Christmas for another, and then again in January...  There are only two or three flights from Hawaii to Kwaj each week.  How much more do you think it costs to haul the vehicle, payload, propellants, and support equipment to the middle of the Pacific as opposed to the three hour drive from El Segundo to Vandenberg?  For the larger rockets, Kwaj doesn't have the payload processing facilities necessary for the class of satellites that would use those vehicles.  A better choice would be to share the launch platform and facilities with Sea Launch, which may be the plan given their recent hiring of Jim Maser.

The only reason I see for going through the trouble of launching at the Cape -- ever -- is public relations; actually a very specific public: stock market analysts. If a rocket launches at the historic Cape, then they are a "real" rocket company. That would have meant lots of money, if timed for the IPO. Now, Elon will just have to show them their shiny facility in the south pacific. It can still work.

If Falcon 1 would have been a clear success, then they would have had options. However, now they've painted themselves into a corner. Maybe Elon will find a way to launch outside of Kwaj, but I don't see it in the near future.

Well, if Elon ever wants to capture part of the COTS market, he'll need to operate out of the Cape.  NASA has just too much payload processing and mission support infrastructure there to relocate it to the middle of the Pacific.  As for operating anywhere else, you're logic is flawed.  Launch ranges exist specifically to contain the risk of vehicle failures in a way that does not create a danger to the public.  The first flight failure will certainly result in additional safety reviews, but by no means does that preclude a flight from VAFB or Canaveral.  That's why those facilities exist.

[James Lowe1]

Elon has been on CNN and said he intends to launch Falcon 1 MkII in six months time.

[Cretan126]

Many people familiar with failure investigations and launch vehicles are betting on something closer to a year.  That would also be consistent with the optimistic track record of all of Elon's promised timelines. Remember that originally they were prepared to launch "by the end of 2003" and the long pole was regulatory approvals.  And from an August 2004 Space.com article:

 "For Falcon 1, by 2007, the likely launch rate is probably five or six a year, Musk predicted."

Now, it may be 2007 before the first launch.  Obviously, SpaceX has had a big dose of reality since then but realistic schedules are still not part of their MO - their own website currently shows the first launch of Falcon 9 in 12-15 months (albeit not updated post-failure).

Also, since they are supporting a 'U.S. Government led anomaly investigation', the case for Falcon 1 being developed without Government support pretty much goes out the door.  The Air Force will now be working side-by-side to tell them what went wrong and how to fix it - along with any other shortcomings they may discover.

Similarlly, over on another thread ("Someone tell me...") I noticed a debate raging on the subject of private vs. Government launch vehicles, including how much heritage technology was Government developed even for the most pristine, privately funded venture.  One area that I didn't notice come up was SpaceX's test facility in McGregor, TX.  They didn't build this themselves - it was originally a Naval Weapons Reserve Industrial Plant that at one time was run by Rocketdyne.  More recently, Beal Aerospace used it for testing their rocket motors.  I have no idea what the exact contractual relationship is (lease, loan, etc), but that's seems to be a pretty good contribution of Government-built facilities to the SpaceX cause.

It will interesting to see what the next line of rhetoric and rationalization arises from beautiful downtown El Segundo - as well as how this all plays out over the next 12 months.  Stay tuned.

[Mark Max Q]

> "For Falcon 1, by 2007, the likely launch rate is probably five or six a year, Musk predicted." < Well I think that's overly ambitious to say the least.

[Jim]

Cretan126 - 30/3/2006  7:45 PM Also, since they are supporting a 'U.S. Government led anomaly investigation', the case for Falcon 1 being developed without Government support pretty much goes out the door.  The Air Force will now be working side-by-side to tell them what went wrong and how to fix it - along with any other shortcomings they may discover.

You have the wrong twist on the investigation.  The scope will be "why did a rocket blow up on our range and did we have something to do with it"  Once the range is exonerate, the gov't will said to Spacex, you have a problem and you need to fix it before launching again.  The range might also revisit their decision not to require destruct packages on the Falcon.

But in no way, is the Air Force going to help them fix it.  That would be probably against the law

[aero313]

Jim - 31/3/2006  7:59 AM

But in no way, is the Air Force going to help them fix it.  That would be probably against the law

That's not been my experience with AF participation in failure review boards.  This was a gov't funded payload on a gov't purchased launch.  Aerospace Corp will be all over SpaceX - conveniently located only a few minutes away from Circle A HQ in El Segundo (yet another reason not to locate your company there).  When the commercially-funded Pegasus failed with Gov't payloads, the AF, NASA, and Aerospace were all over Orbital, forcing many changes to design and processes that contributed to both increased reliability and increased cost.  And as I stated in the other thread, the situation with Pegasus was exactly the same as with SpaceX - a privately developed launch vehicle where the gov't purchased a launch service and provided the payload.

[Jim]

aero313 - 31/3/2006  8:45 AM

Jim - 31/3/2006  7:59 AMBut in no way, is the Air Force going to help them fix it.  That would be probably against the law

That's not been my experience with AF participation in failure review boards.  This was a gov't funded payload on a gov't purchased launch.  Aerospace Corp will be all over SpaceX - conveniently located only a few minutes away from Circle A HQ in El Segundo (yet another reason not to locate your company there).  When the commercially-funded Pegasus failed with Gov't payloads, the AF, NASA, and Aerospace were all over Orbital, forcing many changes to design and processes that contributed to both increased reliability and increased cost.  And as I stated in the other thread, the situation with Pegasus was exactly the same as with SpaceX - a privately developed launch vehicle where the gov't purchased a launch service and provided the payload.

It was a DARPA launch with a "university class" AFA  payload.  DARPA won't get in their nickers.  Neither will the AFA.  This launch wasn't funded under the IDIQ contract the USAF has.  DARPA just pays to see if something can happen.  If it doesn't then a lesson learned. 

Pegasus had gov payloads manifested, so the gov had vested interest.

[aero313]

Jim - 31/3/2006  9:56 AM

It was a DARPA launch with a "university class" AFA  payload.  DARPA won't get in their nickers.  Neither will the AFA.  This launch wasn't funded under the IDIQ contract the USAF has.

The Pegasus F2 "partial success" in 1991 was also a DARPA launch.  $6M contract value.  Orbital spent a year on the anomaly investigation, including lots of "help" from Circle A.  Ten bucks says SpaceX gets the same - unless there's an obvious smoking gun, in which case there will be a "DOH!, why didn't you catch that" investigation.  More importantly, if Elon wants to sell launch services to the gov't, he needs to get them on board with his vehicle.  If he thinks this is a problem now, he'd better not even think about competing for EELV-class missions.

As an aside for those who don't remember their history, the early Pegasus missions evolved similarly to the way the SpaceX ones have.  The Pegasus maiden flight was supposed to launch the DARPA Microsats mission.  DARPA finally realized that they had better have a demo flight first and contracted for a precursor flight with a low-value payload and some instrumentation.  Of course, in that case the maiden flight worked fine and the second one had a problem.

[hyper_snyper]

New videos and pictures are on the SpaceX site.

Hmm...the new videos are pretty adamant in not showing the point of failure.  The onboard camera view NSF has shows the entire flight sequence, while the one just released does not.  Also, looking at the new long range video, Falcon 1 got higher up than I imagined.

[lmike]

Looking at the new photos in the update, it seems the 'engine fire' had started early before the Falcon cleared the launch rig ( http://www.spacex.com/pages/Credit_Thom_Rogers_SpaceX_006_jpg.htm ) ?  Seems like the leak developed almost upon launch.  Or even http://www.spacex.com/pages/Credit_Thom_Rogers_SpaceX_0091_jpg.htm same point relative to the 'SpaceX' mark on the first stage

[Hotol]

Why on Earth would then not show the videos through to failure and beyond that point?

[Damon Hill]

All sorts of interesting noises at ignition and liftoff, some of which might be an
overloaded microphone.  How often do we hear such sounds from so close up?
What's that shrill noise just before ignition?  Starts with a bang, doesn't it?

In the stills, it looks like part of the insulation blanket did separate at liftoff.
Zooming in on a couple of the photos, I can't clearly pinpoint the source of
the anomalous flames, other than they appear to originate in the turbopump
area of the engine; a later picture shows more flames higher up but that
might be due to aerodynamic entraining?

[Tap-Sa]

Damon Hill - 1/4/2006  12:20 PM
 
What's that shrill noise just before ignition?  Starts with a bang, doesn't it?

 

I believe the shrill noise comes from turbopump's gas generator/turbine. The ignition bang is really loud! I wonder if that's normal, doesn't that mean a 'hard start' ie detonation somewhere in or around the engine.

[Benny]

(...it still is a pretty beautiful sight seing Falcon 1 lift-off and rise into the shining blue
sky and the waters beneath...almost a perfect day....)

[amon]

There are a number of videos on www.spacex.com which look like they might be interesting if I could access them. If there is anyone here from spacex, could you have someone try viewing them with mplayer from a linux box? (Other viewers are not working either: totem just gets locked solid).

Either that, or put the files where they could be alternatively downloaded.

[braddock]

amon - 1/4/2006  8:25 AM
..with mplayer from a linux box? (Other viewers are not working either: totem just gets locked solid).

Amon,

Actually, gxine seems to play those videos flawlessly on my Ubuntu Linux install, using the MS WMV 9 video codec and Windows Media Audio v3 audio codec, which are part of the w32codecs package.

In fact, the quality is much better on gxine than on the actual Windows Media Player, because it has better buffering.  I couldn't get Windows to play those high-bandwidth videos properly because they over-saturated my link, and the tiny WMP buffer kept skipping.

-braddock

[Crunch]

I am fortunate my chosen career has allowed me to “launch” several different types of
solid fueled missiles. AT-4, Dragon, and TOW.

The launch events are always a large cannon-like “BANG” not “whoosh” like in Hollywood. I can only imagine the “BANG” a large rocket like that makes.

It is unfortunate that SpaceX failed to launch the first time, I am in PCS status and missed the event live, and I still can’ get that darn video to work anyone have it in a different format?

Hopefully the AAR’s will ID the problem quickly for the fix.  Still the thing got off the pad, many first launches do not make it that far.

Crunch, 3ID-2UA

[Jonesy STS]

amon - 1/4/2006  7:25 AM

There are a number of videos on www.spacex.com which look like they might be interesting if I could access them. If there is anyone here from spacex, could you have someone try viewing them with mplayer from a linux box? (Other viewers are not working either: totem just gets locked solid).

Either that, or put the files where they could be alternatively downloaded.

Maybe Chris could put them on the FTP to make it easier?