Author Topic: Falcon 1 - Post Failure thread (Read 134930 times)

dmc6960 · « **Reply #300 on:** 04/07/2006 01:58 pm »

Quote

braddock - 6/4/2006 4:14 PM

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.

It is the size of the satellite, slightly too big for the fairing of a Falcon 1. I agree though that a Falcon 9 would be overkill. A Falcon 5 is listed as able to do just over 1000 kg into a GTO. Not sure of the power differences for a polar VS GTO, but it certainly seems doable.

dmc6960 · « **Reply #301 on:** 04/10/2006 08:57 pm »

SpaceX has extended the video on the website of the onboard camera to include the full duration of the flight now. Engine shutdown and vehicle fallback are much less violent than the recorded webcast footage lead me to believe. Unfortunately the distant view has not been extended to show the vehicle falling.

hyper_snyper · « **Reply #302 on:** 04/10/2006 09:08 pm »

Interesting, the updated video shows much more detail and a more complete timeline than the one we have on the FTP section.

Jamie Young · « **Reply #303 on:** 04/11/2006 03:15 am »

Link?

hyper_snyper · « **Reply #304 on:** 04/11/2006 03:19 am »

Quote

Jamie Young - 10/4/2006 11:15 PM

Link?

The updates page on SpaceX.com has been updated with a new onboard camera video showing the entire flight.

Rob in KC · « **Reply #305 on:** 04/11/2006 03:23 am »

mms://a1045.v221657.c22165.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/1045/22165/v0001/spacex.download.akamai.com/22165/F1-001-Launch-RocketCam2.wmv

Jim · « **Reply #306 on:** 04/11/2006 12:30 pm »

Spacex forgot to institute a sacred aerospace policy. It has many uses: security, quality assurance, mission assurance, safety, etc. It is not foolproof and does not guarantee that it will provide all these, but it is simple and effective. Labor costs are not doubled nor are they insignificant, but in light of what happened.

SpaceX should have had in place the 2 man rule.

aero313 · « **Reply #307 on:** 04/11/2006 02:01 pm »

Quote

Jim - 11/4/2006 8:30 AM

SpaceX should have had in place the 2 man rule.

I was thinking more like written debug and rework procedures...

As I've posted before, Orbital went through the same learning process and one Pegasus failure was caused by inadequately written procedures. Just remember that at least some of the Pegasus cost increase from $6M to current prices is due to this added level of flight assurance effort. It's by no means all or even a major part of the cost increase, but novice space launch developers need to account for these costs when bashing the price of the competition.

R&R · « **Reply #308 on:** 04/12/2006 11:28 pm »

Quote

braddock - 7/4/2006 8:50 AM

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.

Unfortunately I can't find where I read it but in an interview with Elon that I read last week he said they were moving the Vandenberg Launch to Kwaj in part due to lingering issues at VAFB. My guess is that the Range has said no way they launch without explosive destruct. I'll also bet Santa Barbara EPA (they call the shots for environment at VAFB) has gotten in the mix too. A few thousand gallons of RP-1 is just part of it they also don't like pretty little protected flowers from being disturbed by something like a nearly intact rocket landing on them. Have you learned any more braddock? Anyone?

Avron · « **Reply #309 on:** 04/13/2006 12:32 am »

Quote

R&R - 12/4/2006 7:28 PM

Quote
braddock - 7/4/2006 8:50 AM

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.

Unfortunately I can't find where I read it but in an interview with Elon that I read last week he said they were moving the Vandenberg Launch to Kwaj in part due to lingering issues at VAFB. My guess is that the Range has said no way they launch without explosive destruct. I'll also bet Santa Barbara EPA (they call the shots for environment at VAFB) has gotten in the mix too. A few thousand gallons of RP-1 is just part of it they also don't like pretty little protected flowers from being disturbed by something like a nearly intact rocket landing on them. Have you learned any more braddock? Anyone?

Did you notice the little hut go from zero to 160MPH in 1 sec at launch and the video of the trees on the island taking a beating, other than that, on the long range video it looked like a great launch.. more please Elon.. I would have said "mooi skoot", but it looks like the reef got in the way..

braddock · « **Reply #310 on:** 04/13/2006 02:58 pm »

Quote

R&R - 12/4/2006 7:28 PM

Quote
braddock - 7/4/2006 8:50 AM
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.

Unfortunately I can't find where I read it but in an interview with Elon that I read last week he said they were moving the Vandenberg Launch to Kwaj in part due to lingering issues at VAFB.

I'd love it if you can find the source for that.

Elon has this way of popping up on a college campus or random site, where he goes on and on and really opens the barn doors, but you can only read about it in the school paper while official channels don't respond. It is a strange company to cover...of course we can't complain because in January WE were the site he randomly popped up on to do an incredible Q&A.

InfraNut · « **Reply #311 on:** 04/13/2006 03:29 pm »

Quote

braddock - 13/4/2006 5:58 PM

I'd love it if you can find the source for that.

I can help. I found this:

"During an April joint press conference here with Musk, Lloyd Feldman, the assistant director of the Pentagon’s Office of Force Transformation, said the office was not fazed by the Falcon 1’s botched debut and still intends to launch the experimental TacSat-1 on the rocket’s next mission, which is expected to occur this fall from Kwajalein."

from a space.com article by Brian Berger april 6. URL: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/060406_nss_falc1.html

Article also published in US Air Force AIM Points, april 7.

Just a small matter of creative googling... :-)

(If desired, maybe you can locate an exact first-hand quote in a transcript or some press release from that press conference).

InfraNut · « **Reply #312 on:** 04/13/2006 05:01 pm »

(ref. previous post)

However:

I cannot remember reading anything official or otherwise reliable about the REASON for the move of the TACSAT-1 from Vandenberg to Kwaj.

There has of course been a lot of well (and less well) informed guesswork and rumor-monging going on here on this site and elsewhere, but I have not noticed anything authorative so far.

If anyone has found some reliable info, please share.

R&R · « **Reply #313 on:** 04/13/2006 09:41 pm »

Quote

InfraNut - 14/4/2006 9:29 AM

Quote
braddock - 13/4/2006 5:58 PM

I'd love it if you can find the source for that.

I can help. I found this:

"During an April joint press conference here with Musk, Lloyd Feldman, the assistant director of the Pentagon’s Office of Force Transformation, said the office was not fazed by the Falcon 1’s botched debut and still intends to launch the experimental TacSat-1 on the rocket’s next mission, which is expected to occur this fall from Kwajalein."

Okay I've searched far and wide and still no joy finding the original interview I quoted. I did see the quote above and I think maybe because Musk is in the same sentence as the Pentagon guys statement I made a connection to Elon saying it when I dredged it back out of my memory. I'll concede it is not a fact that they will leave VAFB for the next attempt though I still won't be surprised when it is made official.

Jonesy STS · « **Reply #314 on:** 05/01/2006 02:39 pm »

Any updates on how the turnaround to another attempt is progressing?

dmc6960 · « **Reply #315 on:** 05/05/2006 03:06 am »

According to this Space.com article...

http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_isdc_musk_060504.html

SpaceX plans to have their next launch in September. And, if they get some good COTS money they could have an operational Dragon Capsule operational in 3 years, or by 2011 with lesser capability without extra funding.

braddock · « **Reply #316 on:** 05/05/2006 10:43 am »

The Wall Street Journal article from last month that first mentioned that Musk would be willing to spend up to another $100 million of his own money is now freely available (no subscription required after 30 days).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114425135386617769.html

The article takes a pretty harsh "the SpaceX/Pentagon love affair is over" angle to things, although I'm not sure it is justified. It did sound like Musk was complaining a bit about DoD at the conference.

An interesting passage which apparently hasn't panned out yet: "To try to demonstrate continuing momentum, Mr. Musk later Wednesday is expected to announce his company has landed a European government customer for a later and larger planned version of the Falcon rocket."

braddock · « **Reply #317 on:** 05/05/2006 11:11 am »

Alan Boyle at MSNBC took a group tour of the SpaceX facilities led by Elon Musk last week. He wrote about it in his blog:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12586173/#060503a
(scroll down to "Inside the rocket factory")

The most interesting tid-bit: "The schedule calls for that second demonstration flight in September or October, funded by the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. If that goes well, yet another Falcon 1 launch would put the military's TacSat 1 telecommunications satellite into orbit (along with a secondary payload of cremated remains) in the December-January time frame."

It sounds like TacSat 1 won't be riding the next Falcon 1 until it has had a successful DARPA demonstration flight. I wonder if they will even have a payload? DARPA doesn't currently have another flight on the manifest, and I don't imagine they are the type of agency that can turn around a $7 million launch contract in a month.

aero313 · « **Reply #318 on:** 05/05/2006 01:55 pm »

Great, so the reward for failure is another $7M in taxpayer money? Just remember this the next time Elon complains about the Boeing/LockMart monopoly...

josh_simonson · « **Reply #319 on:** 05/05/2006 06:26 pm »

I'm sure they'll find something to launch. Perhaps a re-entry TPS demonstrator for the dragon if nothing else.