Falcon 1 - Post Failure thread

[mr.columbus]

3-5 months would be my bet, if it really just was the blanket.

[amon]

I'm seeing what looks like some light venting above the velcro before the side thrust. Does anyone else or am I looking too hard?

[nacnud]

Next launch is supposed to be in a few months, it depends on what the problems were whether that date is viable.

[DaveS]

I don't think we're seeing the upperstage at all here. The closest thing to the camera is the black interstage adapter. So the most probable location of the camera is on top of the interstage adapter.

[R&R]

Engine shut off for flight termination may be okay for Kwaj but I'll bet the Western Range asks for explosives before they give a go for Vandenburg.  Those seemed to be real big pieces heading to the water.  Doubt they'll want the last pictures to be of Lompoc.

[amon]

What I think I am seeing is some venting just below the black interstage.

[ericr]

From an update last year by Elon:

In addition to all the physical work that has taken place, a lot of effort has gone into ensuring that the rocket is safe for flight with a fully qualified, independent and redundant thrust termination system.

[hyper_snyper]

DaveS - 24/3/2006  8:27 PMI don't think we're seeing the upperstage at all here. The closest thing to the camera is the black interstage adapter. So the most probable location of the camera is on top of the interstage adapter.

I think this is the camera, no?

[nacnud]

Is there an umblical that juts out of the vehicle anywhere? the camera seems to be on the base of that.

¦ ¦        ¦
¦ ¦____ ¦
¦ ¦        ¦
\ ¦        ¦
 \¦        ¦ <- camera is about here on the other side
  ¦        ¦
  ¦        ¦  
  ¦        ¦
  ¦        ¦
  ¦        ¦  
  ¦        ¦
  ¦        ¦
  ¦        ¦  
  ¦        ¦
  ______
      /     /`\

[nacnud]

board runined my ASCII drawing

[David AF]

Let's not forget there will be some some very upset Air Force Academy cadets. They built Falconsat 2. Not the big picture, but I know there was a huge amount of dedication placed into that Sat.

[Martin FL]

nacnud - 24/3/2006  7:37 PM

board runined my ASCII drawing

You have a rare talent in launch vehicle design schematics

[mr.columbus]

Sure, but they knew it was the first launch of a new rocket and that there was a chance that it will not succeed. Maybe they try to rebuild Falconsat and have it flown later on.

[Propforce]

Tap-Sa - 24/3/2006  5:11 PM

Propforce - 25/3/2006  3:03 AM
 
My guess is there was a "breach" in the combustion chamber.

My guess is there was no failure in the engine, the visible effects were part of thrust termination sequence. RSO hit the button because vehicle veered off course, or just because it was clear that the blanket didn't come off as it was supposed to, which was in violation of flight specs.

I can only see the video footage from this (NSF) site.  From what I saw, the vehicle did not look like it was veering off course before the big flash.  I did see the blanket flapping around in the breeze but it's hard to imagine the thrust of rocket and gimbal can not correct the aero forces on the blanket.

[amon]

If I stare at the video any harder I'll be seeing little gremlins tearing out piping... it is late UTC here and time for bed I am afraid. I'll check back in the morning (my time) and expect to see the exact time line and cause posted  

[braddock]

R&R - 24/3/2006  8:31 PM
Engine shut off for flight termination may be okay for Kwaj but I'll bet the Western Range asks for explosives before they give a go for Vandenburg.  Those seemed to be real big pieces heading to the water.  Doubt they'll want the last pictures to be of Lompoc.

I think they were already getting grief from Vandenburg about that.  There is more from the press call today, but to start here is an brief excerpt from Sam Dinkin of The Space Review's SpaceX tour four-part transcript:

Molina: We do thrust termination instead of having explosives on the vehicle.
Boland: That was a big issue, wasn’t it?
Molina: Absolutely, because it is not a usual way of doing this. SpaceX tends to do what hasn’t been done.
...
Boland: Were you involved in the process of approval for the flight termination?
Bjelde: You are talking to the right person. I designed and qualified the flight termination system.
Boland: Do you feel that the certification process was fair? Certainly it must have been onerous, but was it fair?
Bjelde: It was onerous, but I think it was very fair. The guidelines they set are for a reason. If you are flying out of Santa Barbara, there have been misses in the past. It is very easy to make mistake in the guidance algorithm code if a left turn turns into a right turn. It would be bad publicity, right, if we impact into Los Angeles?
Molina: Don’t do that.

It's an interesting read if you are into SpaceX minutia.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/575/1

[braddock]

David AF - 24/3/2006  8:24 PM
How long until SpaceX will be ready for a second attempt, by way of an estimate? A year? Two?

Good question.  If the launch had gone WELL, they were looking at 3-6 months.  Here is an excerpt from the press call this afternoon:

Gwynne Shotwell: "We would then launch TacSat-1, which was actually our first customer, between three and five to six months after this particular flight; and let me tell you the reason for that delay. Because we have slipped on the launch for the TacSat mission, that team is kinda dispersed, and working on other projects. So they basically have to pull themselves back together as a team, get the satellite out of storage where it is now, and get themselves back to vandenberg. In addition we have a little bit of work to do at Vandenberg ourselves. So I would say look for a Tac launch, I dunno, maybe five months from now."

But then they have some Vandenberg issues; there was a great Q&A on that, I'll try to transcribe it now from my recording.

In short, it sounded like Vandenberg was continuing to fret, and they were hoping todays launch would reassure them.

[DaveS]

After thinking hard about if the RSO had any role in today's mishap of the Falcon 1, I have reached the conclusion that RSO did not trigger the FTS.

It isn't part of the RSO's job to determine if the vehicle is healthy or not, that's up the flight controllers.  

If the RSO would have activated the FTS due to the flapping blankets, the RSO would have asked for LC's approval to do so, as the RSO generally does not have any knowledge of vehicle operational parameters.

The RSO is to determine if the vehicle is veering of out of control and if the vehicle is out of control, then activate the FTS.

Clearly the vehicle did not veer of course until after engine failure event.  It seems like the engine cut-off prematurely. I know that the past static firings have been aborted due to various glitches, and now it seems like one of these glitches got it hard this time.

I think that the Falcon's computer has been programmed to be overly sensitive and restrictive.

My other theory is that Falcon suffered what made the Delta IV Heavy partially fail on its first flight: aA LOX bubble fooling the ECO sensors and initiated an engine cut-off as it thought it was out of LOX.

[R&R]

According to SpaceX by way of the Futron study the Falcon has the highest design reliability of any rocket.  Reliability comes from successful deployment of the payload.

Delta & Atlas 99% or better, Falcon 0%.

[Exci]

The thermal blanket wasn't around when that study was conducted