Falcon 1 - Post Failure thread

[lmike]

For what it's worth...  http://www.usspacenews.com/

"Falcon 1 Loss  Update - Exclusive!
April 3, 2006

We have just  been informed that today, Elon spoke about the problem.  He claims
a 1/4 line was not secured.  The Leak started 4min before liftoff.
"

Now what is a '1/4 line' ?  And why wasn't it 'secured'?

[Hotol]

People have had a real problem with that website. They've gotten nearly every story they've done wrong. They even make stories out of officials asking for retractions, they are so wrong.

They either steal news and call it their own, like on the ET stories that are here and then they claim it as their exclusive two weeks later, or make it up as they go along.

They are trying to be a new NASAWatch (they steal enough of their content!) and coming out as idiots.

[Jim]

lmike - 5/4/2006  3:27 AMFor what it's worth...  http://www.usspacenews.com/"Falcon 1 Loss  Update - Exclusive!April 3, 2006We have just  been informed that today, Elon spoke about the problem.  He claims a 1/4 line was not secured.  The Leak started 4min before liftoff."Now what is a '1/4 line' ?  And why wasn't it 'secured'?

He means a line that is 1/4" in dia. and it was not properly secured (attached or tightened).  I am not speaking from knowledge of the problem but translating his statement

[aero313]

Hotol - 5/4/2006  6:36 AM

People have had a real problem with that website. They've gotten nearly every story they've done wrong. They even make stories out of officials asking for retractions, they are so wrong.

Maybe so (I've never seen that website before) but I heard the same Elon quote from a different source.  Sounds like a major Oh S#!t...

They are trying to be a new NASAWatch (they steal enough of their content!) and coming out as idiots.

Am I the only one who thinks Keith Cowing has gotten pretty whiny lately?  Not to mention that he's vying to be the number one media cheerleader for SpaceX.  He was so busy posting daily updates on SpaceX that he never even mentioned the successful Pegasus launch of ST5.

[Hotol]

aero313 - 5/4/2006  9:10 AM


Maybe so (I've never seen that website before) but I heard the same Elon quote from a different source.  Sounds like a major Oh S#!t...

That's my point. They hear whispers and report it as their exclusive, which is why they are wrong most of the time. It's bad media.

Anyway, back on subject.

[Chris Bergin]

Yes, can we please keep this on topic and not turn it into a "judge-a-site" contest.

[aero313]

Hotol - 5/4/2006  10:36 AM

aero313 - 5/4/2006  9:10 AM


Maybe so (I've never seen that website before) but I heard the same Elon quote from a different source.  Sounds like a major Oh S#!t...

That's my point.

Actually, I'm not sure what your point was.  MY point was that Elon apparently made this statement in Colorado Springs earlier this week.  I meant that if what he (Elon) said was true, this would be a really dumb mistake.  Real launch vehicles have written procedures that need to be followed and signed off to prevent just such oversights (yes, I know it's no guarantee).  Unfortunately one of the tenets of space launch novices seems to be "we don't need no steenking paper".  I'm not saying that SpaceX doesn't have launch site procedures, but missing a step like this and causing a failure - particularly if they saw the leak 4 min before launch - doesn't build confidence.  

Yes, Pegasus had a failure (STEP Mission 3) where a tech incorrectly installed some hardware due to inadequately-written procedures.  This happened during the transition from having high-priced engineers build the rocket to using lower-cost techs.  That transition is a necessity (plus the engineers tend to get bored doing the same thing every time), but it also shows why you need to spend a little more money on well-written procedures and QA support.

The bottom line is that there isn't any low-cost magic in the SpaceX hardware - it's really just an updated 1950s Thor.  They've even stated many times that their price doesn't account for any reusability.  The only two things keeping the price down are Elon's personal subsidy and not paying for labor.  Elon will tire of the former at some point (or run out of money).  The latter will change as they realize they need to add people to each mission to do it right (though they ARE up to 180 employees!!).  Either way, I predict history will repeat itself and the price of a Falcon 1 will rise, just as Pegasus prices did before it.

[blairf]

Pretty much all mistakes are 'pretty dumb' when viewed with hindsight.

As far as I can tell the problem was not the leak (could have aborted and launched OK later) nor the detection of the leak (was detected and indicators of leak were available to launch team), nor the launch procedure (all steps were checked and explicitly checking *everything* prior to launch is just not practical), nor the size/skill of the launch team (a couple of sub-based ratings are perfectly capable of launching big complex rockets).

The problem was how the exceptions got reported to the launch team and failed to trigger action, that is a systemic error rather than mechanical, procedural or human. Generally designing a system for low incremental costs will involve high up-front costs; if you have a particular data analysis task that takes you 2 hours of stuffing about in SQL, SAS, excel or whatever about you could just write a 'program' to do it that runs in 0.00000001 seconds, but writing the program will take you much much more than 2 hours. On Spacex's side is the fact that Falcon 1 is a very simple rocket (as far as these things go) and encoding the checking system should be manageable.

In your last paragraph I think you fail to understand what Elon is trying to do. He is explicitly NOT trying to use low-cost magic. He is trying to rethink the entire business processes for designing, building and launching. Ultimately in all high-tech areas the ultimate determinant of cost is labour consumed. Elon has chosen to invest (not spend on consumables) $100 million in building an entity that can launch profitably at $6 million a go. If he succeds then his $100 million suddenly becomes a 95% holding in an entity worth at least one order of magnitude more. I think his gamble will pay off and you don't; perhaps more importantly Elon does, and there are 300 million reasons in his bank account to suggest that his judgement is better than yours or mine.

Your comment regarding the Futron study prompted me to go and actually read the thing! I noticed, and I am sure you know this to, that the study was not a prediction of actual vehicle reliablity, but rather a study of design reliablity. As such it remains perfectly valid. The fact that Falcon 1 is 'just' a pair of single engine liquid stages means that despite its recent failure it still has high design reliablity; in other words shoud they sort out their ground based SNAFUS it ought to have a long and reliable life.

[Justin Space]

Does anyone have an idea of "process" - to get this back on track for a turnaround to go for another attempt.

1) Do they have another Falcon 1 ready to be shipped to the Atol?

2) Is that on hold until the investigation is over - how long is that expected to take - any critical issues that could bring this over six months till the next attempt?

Any help would be useful for understanding how they'll be able to go for another attempt in the Autumn/Fall.

[Tap-Sa]

Justin Space - 6/4/2006  11:52 AM
 
1) Do they have another Falcon 1 ready to be shipped to the Atol?

They changed the payload to another vehicle after December scrub 'implosion'. The deformed first stage tank ough to be easy to fix/change, if not already done.

[edkyle99]

Justin Space - 6/4/2006  2:52 AM

Does anyone have an idea of "process" - to get this back on track for a turnaround to go for another attempt.

1) Do they have another Falcon 1 ready to be shipped to the Atol?

2) Is that on hold until the investigation is over - how long is that expected to take - any critical issues that could bring this over six months till the next attempt?

Any help would be useful for understanding how they'll be able to go for another attempt in the Autumn/Fall.

As of November last year the word was that SpaceX had completed two Falcon 1 launch
vehicles and had a third underway.  (I  suspect that the 2005 Texas test stand Merlin
failure was the engine for the third vehicle).  Both stages of the first vehicle were
damaged during the initial Omelek launch attempts.  The second vehicle was obviously
destroyed in the failed launch.  Either vehicle number 3 will have to be completed
(it may already be finished), or vehicle number 1 will have to be repaired, before
the next launch attempt can be made.

 - Ed Kyle

[mvanbavel]

blairf - 5/4/2006  11:12 AM


The problem was how the exceptions got reported to the launch team and failed to trigger action, that is a systemic error rather than mechanical, procedural or human. Generally designing a system for low incremental costs will involve high up-front costs; if you have a particular data analysis task that takes you 2 hours of stuffing about in SQL, SAS, excel or whatever about you could just write a 'program' to do it that runs in 0.00000001 seconds, but writing the program will take you much much more than 2 hours. On Spacex's side is the fact that Falcon 1 is a very simple rocket (as far as these things go) and encoding the checking system should be manageable.

It sure sounds like they need more BITE (built-in test equipment) and more of it under computer control. The leak, pressure and valve state sensors need to be tied to an independent  computer that can stop the launch. In my days designing radio nav systems for airplanes we wrote software that tried to check out the whole system from end to end before the plane left the ground. If there'e anything that can be sensed there needs to be a sensor and code that is watching it. If they had more of that they would be asking why didn't it launch rather than why did it blow up. Sure it makes it a bigger software job and the checkout software might become bigger than the software that flies the rocket, but after they loose three rockets in a row it's going to look cheap. My apologies if I am grossly misunderstanding this.

[braddock]

Justin Space - 6/4/2006  3:52 AM
1) Do they have another Falcon 1 ready to be shipped to the Atol?
2) Is that on hold until the investigation is over - how long is that expected to take - any critical issues that could bring this over six months till the next attempt?

Well, the next Falcon is due to be launched from Vandenberg, not the Atoll.  Of course, there are now probably complications with getting permission to launch from Vandenberg.

TacSat-1, the next payload, is supposed to go into a 500km circular 64 degree inclination orbit.  Is there a penalty for going to a high-inclination orbit from the equator (aka Kwaj vs Vandenberg)?  TacSat-1 is only 110kg, vs the 570kg to LEO reported capability of Falcon 1, so I guess it could put it pretty much anywhere?  Someone with a more professional understanding of orbital mechanics can feel free to bail me out here...

They also have to bring the TacSat-1 satellite team back together from other projects as well once they have a return-to-launch timeline identified, and secure permission from Vandenberg, and avoid any other range conflicts there (which held them up for months last year).

Good TacSat-1 info:
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content.php?P=04REVIEW207
http://www.responsivespace.com/Papers/RS2%5CSESSION%20PAPERS%5CSESSION%205%5CHURLEY%5C5003C.pdf

[Jim]

Hard to eyeball this one.  Yes, it is better to launch from higher latitudes for high inclinations.  But 60 degrees is mid range and has an eastern component.

Also 60 degrees out of VAFB can't be done without plane changes.  

[Benny]

There is quite a interesting article about SpaceX regarding the Falcon 1 launch:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/060406_nss_falc1.html

- It seems that it actually was a human error.
- Musk will provide a free launch for the Air Force Academy Students on a Falcon9
- SpaceX has post-launch Falcon1 received a new client for a Falcon 9 launch
 

[edkyle99]

Jim - 6/4/2006  10:13 AM

Hard to eyeball this one.  Yes, it is better to launch from higher latitudes for high inclinations.  But 60 degrees is mid range and has an eastern component.

Also 60 degrees out of VAFB can't be done without plane changes.  

Lacrosse 3 was launched into a 670-ish km x 57 degree orbit from Vandenberg
in 1997.  The Titan might have done a dogleg during ascent.

 - Ed Kyle

[edkyle99]

Benny - 6/4/2006  12:59 PM

There is quite a interesting article about SpaceX regarding the Falcon 1 launch:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/060406_nss_falc1.html

- It seems that it actually was a human error.
- Musk will provide a free launch for the Air Force Academy Students on a Falcon9
- SpaceX has post-launch Falcon1 received a new client for a Falcon 9 launch
 

So, what is a "tiny fuel pipe fitting"?  Is it a clamp that holds the pipe
to keep it from vibrating, or is it a connector that plugs the line into
something?  Who speaks plumbing here?

 - Ed Kyle

[Jim]

edkyle99 - 6/4/2006  1:31 PM

Jim - 6/4/2006  10:13 AMHard to eyeball this one.  Yes, it is better to launch from higher latitudes for high inclinations.  But 60 degrees is mid range and has an eastern component.

Also 60 degrees out of VAFB can't be done without plane changes.  

Lacrosse 3 was launched into a 670-ish km x 57 degree orbit from Vandenberg in 1997.  The Titan might have done a dogleg during ascent. - Ed Kyle

It did

[braddock]

From SDC article: "MacDonald Dettwiller & Associates officials said the payload for the Falcon 9 launch is Cassiope, a Canadian mission to demonstrate an experimental store and forward data delivery system for transmitting large data packages. The roughly 500 kilogram satellite also includes a science instrument and will be launched into low-Earth orbit."

I was wondering why would they buy a Falcon 9 for a 500 kg satellite to LEO?  That is could be within Falcon 1 spec.  Looks like it is a polar bird in a 300 x 1500 km eccentric orbit; I guess that puts them just out of Falcon 1 spec.

Cassiope fact sheet: http://www.mdrobotics.ca/what_we_do/pdf/9755-5R2_CASSIOPE.pdf

[edkyle99]

edkyle99 - 6/4/2006  1:51 PM

Benny - 6/4/2006  12:59 PM

There is quite a interesting article about SpaceX regarding the Falcon 1 launch:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/060406_nss_falc1.html

- It seems that it actually was a human error.
- Musk will provide a free launch for the Air Force Academy Students on a Falcon9
- SpaceX has post-launch Falcon1 received a new client for a Falcon 9 launch
 

So, what is a "tiny fuel pipe fitting"?  Is it a clamp that holds the pipe
to keep it from vibrating, or is it a connector that plugs the line into
something?  Who speaks plumbing here?

 - Ed Kyle

Answering myself, according to one plumbing supply catalog, "Pipe fittings are
designed to attach two pieces of pipe together".  

If they're not together, they leak!

 - Ed Kyle