Author Topic: Falcon 1 - Post Failure thread (Read 134932 times)

hop · « **Reply #320 on:** 05/05/2006 10:30 pm »

Quote

aero313 - 5/5/2006 6:55 AM

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...

Right, because Boeing and Lockmart never lost a payload ?

R&R · « **Reply #321 on:** 05/05/2006 11:40 pm »

Quote

braddock - 6/5/2006 5:11 AM

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.

This could be very telling of what is likely going on with the Range. I have no doubt they are getting pushed to add explosive destruct. If they are and have accepted that the mods and additional review by the Range not to mention additional testing to show compliance with EWR 127-1 most likely are what's keeping the TacSat 1 rocket grounded. The best they can do to show a quick return from the failure is to move another launch ahead of it. Given his position so far I would not be surprised to see Musk fund this launch himself as a proof of concept if DARPA has nothing to put on it or chooses to wait.

Jim · « **Reply #322 on:** 05/06/2006 01:10 pm »

Quote

R&R - 5/5/2006 7:40 PM
Quote
braddock - 6/5/2006 5:11 AMIt 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.
This could be very telling of what is likely going on with the Range. I have no doubt they are getting pushed to add explosive destruct. If they are and have accepted that the mods and additional review by the Range not to mention additional testing to show compliance with EWR 127-1 most likely are what's keeping the TacSat 1 rocket grounded. The best they can do to show a quick return from the failure is to move another launch ahead of it. Given his position so far I would not be surprised to see Musk fund this launch himself as a proof of concept if DARPA has nothing to put on it or chooses to wait.

EWR127-1 is no longer applicable

AFSPCMAN 91-710 is the new reg

BarryKirk · « **Reply #323 on:** 05/06/2006 03:21 pm »

If they had had explosive destruct on that first Falcon, would they have as much of the rocket left to examine now for the post mortem analysis?

mlorrey · « **Reply #324 on:** 05/06/2006 11:22 pm »

Quote

hop - 5/5/2006 5:30 PM

Quote
aero313 - 5/5/2006 6:55 AM

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...
Right, because Boeing and Lockmart never lost a payload ?

Ah, but the rule in business is: if you are going to lose, lose HUGE. $7 million is barely enough to get a small mention on page 4. Losing a billion bucks, though, is worth a week of front page stories. At least Musk actually had hardware on the launchpad which got off the ground. Lockmart spent over a billion bucks on X-33 with absolutely nothing to show for it. As they say, its better to try and fail, then to never try at all.

uko · « **Reply #325 on:** 05/07/2006 10:29 am »

I would argue about the "Lockmart spent over a billion bucks on X-33 with absolutely nothing to show for it" part of your post..

They managed to create a concept that is still my favourite and the closest we will get t o a SSTO vehicle in many years

Also they managed to complete and successfully test a lot of "sexy" components of the X-33.. aerospikes, TPS composites etc

SO.. you really cant say that they had nothing to show for it.. with some more more money I'm sure it would have flown too.. or hopefully it still will.. some day

Jim · « **Reply #326 on:** 05/07/2006 12:42 pm »

Quote

uko - 7/5/2006 6:29 AMI would argue about the "Lockmart spent over a billion bucks on X-33 with absolutely nothing to show for it" part of your post..They managed to create a concept that is still my favourite and the closest we will get t o a SSTO vehicle in many years :(Also they managed to complete and successfully test a lot of "sexy" components of the X-33.. aerospikes, TPS composites etcSO.. you really cant say that they had nothing to show for it.. with some more more money I'm sure it would have flown too.. or hopefully it still will.. some day

And it wasn't just LM, it was NASA's program

R&R · « **Reply #327 on:** 05/07/2006 11:44 pm »

Quote

BarryKirk - 7/5/2006 9:21 AM

If they had had explosive destruct on that first Falcon, would they have as much of the rocket left to examine now for the post mortem analysis?

I suspect they would still have gotten the engine in one piece albeit crumpled some from impact which may not be the case depending on which end of the first stage hit first. They would have gotten the avionics mostly intact as well.

Typical explosive destruct systems don't blow the rocket to pieces by themselves. They split fuel tanks which naturally lead to big bangs from the propellant and they guarantee things like Solids are destroyed as a vehicle breaks apart but the rest of the vehicle is only damaged to the extent that they are caught up in the overall propellant driven explosion. I seem to recall the engines from the Solids from the Challenger vehicle were found very much intact despite the Range blowing the boosters up after they came off the tank.

Launching from Kwaj they don't need explosives because they don't fly in a direction where they can end up falling on something important or on people and I would guess they'll keep launching from there that way. As for launching from Vandenberg I was shocked to hear their first launch was a go without the explosives and frankly I'll be stunned if they are allowed to launch now without explosives in light of the failure. Maybe if they launched 4 or 5 more without failure first they might be able to get back to where they were with the Range.

Cretan126 · « **Reply #328 on:** 05/08/2006 04:31 pm »

Do you think/know that there really was much left over for a post-mortem, other than SpaceX claims? I have it on good authority (i.e. eye witness account) that the vehicle went up in a big fireball once it hit the water. That's likely also what launched FalconSat 2 back toward its shipping container. This is not surprising, given that it still had most of its LOX/Kerosene load in the tanks. But SpaceX has somehow neglected to post that video coverage on their web site.

Cretan126 · « **Reply #329 on:** 05/08/2006 04:40 pm »

The "random quote" that just popped up at the top of this page seems particularly pertinent to this thread:

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman

It seems that public relations is still dominating reality in the case of SpaceX, although the later may slowly be gaining a toe hold.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #330 on:** 05/08/2006 08:37 pm »

I am sure it was impressive.
But, a big fireball does not indicate a powerfull explosion.

Most 'Hollywood' explosions detonate fuel to get that oh so cool fireball. Real comercial explosives do not create a fireball. They are very dark.

Kerosene/LOX is a low speed explosive. Meaning the shock wave propogates at a slow speed. Based on your statement the payload was tossed clear of the vehicle pretty much intact. The engine was on the other end of the vehicle and pushed into the water. I'm sure it was knocked flat, but being underwater it was not exposed to the extreme heat of the blast/fire for a long period of time. The fire raged above it.

I would bet enough of the engine remained intact to recover it. I doubt it was shattered into tiny bits.

Still it would be nice if SpaceX would clear up all the speculation. Not releasing the video of the fireball is pure corporate pr spin.

Honestly I do not blame them. The last thing they want is that fireball engraved in the customers mind. It would kinda be like the hindenburg. Everyone would remember it forever. If it had landed on the island I am sure most of the trees would have been knocked flat. So much for that enviromental impact statement.

mlorrey · « **Reply #331 on:** 05/08/2006 09:41 pm »

Oh, I don't know. Volvo got along for years with pictures of its vehicles surviving crashes, sold a lot of cars despite the ugliness. The first manned spaceship that crash lands and saves its crew is going to be huge in the market.

hop · « **Reply #332 on:** 05/09/2006 02:04 am »

Quote

kevin-rf - 8/5/2006 1:37 PM

I am sure it was impressive.
But, a big fireball does not indicate a powerfull explosion.

Most 'Hollywood' explosions detonate fuel to get that oh so cool fireball. Real comercial explosives do not create a fireball. They are very dark.

Kerosene/LOX is a low speed explosive. Meaning the shock wave propogates at a slow speed. Based on your statement the payload was tossed clear of the vehicle pretty much intact. The engine was on the other end of the vehicle and pushed into the water. I'm sure it was knocked flat, but being underwater it was not exposed to the extreme heat of the blast/fire for a long period of time. The fire raged above it.

There have been a number of Kerosene/LOX rocket failures that resulted in large devastation (the Zenit that turned it's launch pad into a smoking crater comes mind. Or watch the photon M video in the videos section...) Naturally, the worst tend to involve crashing mostly intact soon after liftoff. In that situation you can end up with full tankloads of propellant nicely mixed when they impact.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #333 on:** 05/09/2006 03:11 am »

But, if the rocket hit the water engine first the engines would have been submerged, or possibly submerged when the fuel tanks ruptured mixxing the fuel and lox. In an explosion, water acts as a reflector and would have protected the engine from further damage. I think the impact with the water would have done more damage to the engine.

I am a little suspicous of fact that they where so quick to point to a disconected fuel line. Either they recovered an intact engine, have a prelaunch photo of the area in question, or they are guessing based on telemetry.

Assuming the rocket entered engine first which we do not know since we have not seen the complete video. Can anyone tell from the rocket cam video?

What we have not seen...
The complete video...
What has been recovered... (I would bet the engine looks like it hit a brick wall, but is still intact)
Damage that may have occured to the island...

Since it was a goverment payload, hopefully that means we will get to see the final accident report. If it was a private payload for a private customer the only reason they would have to release anything is to reassure future customers.

As for comparison to the Rusian Zenit/Proton/N1 failures. How much fuel was consumed in those failures? Ummm, I don't think we are in the same ball park. Closer to a delta/thor failure? Maybe the origonal Vanguard failure? How much damage did that do to the pad? For some reason I remember the payload was rolling on the ground still chirping.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #334 on:** 05/09/2006 12:19 pm »

Quote

kevin-rf - 9/5/2006 4:11 AM

What we have not seen...
The complete video...
What has been recovered... (I would bet the engine looks like it hit a brick wall, but is still intact)
Damage that may have occured to the island...

I'm using certain contacts to try and get hold of such information and imagary

hyper_snyper · « **Reply #335 on:** 05/09/2006 02:27 pm »

the

Quote

Chris Bergin - 9/5/2006 8:19 AM
Quote
kevin-rf - 9/5/2006 4:11 AM What we have not seen... The complete video... What has been recovered... (I would bet the engine looks like it hit a brick wall, but is still intact) Damage that may have occured to the island...
I'm using certain contacts to try and get hold of such information and imagary

That probably won't be available until after the investigation is complete. Musk said 6 weeks at ISDC.

josh_simonson · « **Reply #336 on:** 05/09/2006 05:38 pm »

They let reporters view the wreckage, so I imagine we'll get a description of it as soon as it's 'declassified' or however they're calling their little information blackout.

braddock · « **Reply #337 on:** 05/10/2006 01:33 am »

Today it appears that SpaceX is a finalist for the next round of NASA COTS negotiations.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12706352/

Other finalists rumored to be the usual suspects:

Andrews Space
Rocketplane Kistler
SpaceDev
Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX)
SpaceHab
Transformational Space Corporation (t/Space)

( http://michaelbelfiore.com/blog/2006/05/nasa-makes-first-round-of-cuts-for.html )

Avron · « **Reply #338 on:** 05/10/2006 04:33 am »

Quote

braddock - 9/5/2006 9:33 PM

Today it appears that SpaceX is a finalist for the next round of NASA COTS negotiations.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12706352/

Other finalists rumored to be the usual suspects:

Andrews Space
Rocketplane Kistler
SpaceDev
Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX)
SpaceHab
Transformational Space Corporation (t/Space)

( http://michaelbelfiore.com/blog/2006/05/nasa-makes-first-round-of-cuts-for.html )

SpaceHab wins... look who owns what, who knows who... etc.. the old boys club...

My money is on SpaceHab for no other reason than good old back scratching...

How I would love to be proved wrong..

Jim · « **Reply #339 on:** 05/10/2006 12:09 pm »

Quote

Avron - 10/5/2006 12:33 AM
Quote
braddock - 9/5/2006 9:33 PM Today it appears that SpaceX is a finalist for the next round of NASA COTS negotiations. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12706352/ Other finalists rumored to be the usual suspects: Andrews Space Rocketplane Kistler SpaceDev Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) SpaceHab Transformational Space Corporation (t/Space) ( http://michaelbelfiore.com/blog/2006/05/nasa-makes-first-round-of-cuts-for.html )
SpaceHab wins... look who owns what, who knows who... etc.. the old boys club... My money is on SpaceHab for no other reason than good old back scratching... How I would love to be proved wrong..

It is not winner take all. All six could be funded. Spacehab is not the same as it was a few years ago. The old guard has left and same as their JSC contacts.