Firefly Alpha FLTA004 : Tantrum : VSFB SLC-2W : 22 Dec 2023 (17:32 UTC)

[spacenuance]

Following SECO 1, Alpha’s scheduled stage 2 engine relight did not deliver the payload to its precise target orbit.

Sounds like the second stage did relight to some extent, but it underperformed in some way, maybe because reduced thrust or an early cutoff. How long was the burn was supposed to be? I would guess it would be pretty short, maybe <5 seconds.

10 seconds.

Oh wow, thats pretty long. I doubt it takes a full 10 seconds on burn to raise the periapsis 300km, so yeah seems pretty likely the second stage relit and provided at least some performance.

[zubenelgenubi]

CelesTrak has GP data for 2 objects from the launch (2023-202) of a military demonstration satellite atop an Alpha rocket from Vandenberg SFB on Dec 22 at 1732 UTC: spaceflightnow.com/2023/12/20/liv…. Data for the launch can be found at: https://celestrak.org/NORAD/elements/table.php?INTDES=2023-202
[Dec 23 UTC]

Tantrum should be Object A: 216 km x 523 km x 140.0°

[ZachS09]

Should the mission outcome be a partial success?

I feel that "partial failure" sounds too negative based on what Firefly stated.

[jcm]

Should the mission outcome be a partial success?

I feel that "partial failure" sounds too negative based on what Firefly stated.

It's a boundary case, and it depends on your scope. For my database, where I score all launches since Sputnik, and am looking at 'can this rocket get things to orbit', I am more generous than some. On a scale where 0 is total failure and 1 is total success, I am scoring it 0.4  using a rubric at  https://planet4589.org/space/gcat/web/intro/success.html
('failure; orbit but not a usable one'). I also have a category 'success: orbit usable but not nominal') which scores 0.75, and my judgement call is that this orbit does not fall into that category, even if for this particular sat they manage to eke out a reduced mission.
  Other analysts, more focused on recent decades and commercial launches, would likely score this 0, full failure.   Analysts in the early 1960s, when getting to orbit was still a 50/50 thing, might have thought of this flight as a stunning success...

[edkyle99]

Should the mission outcome be a partial success?

I feel that "partial failure" sounds too negative based on what Firefly stated.

I judge the launch vehicle from a customer point of view.  Either the LV puts the payload, in good condition, where it is supposed to go or it doesn't.  In this case - hundreds of km short on perigee - it didn't.  Launch vehicle failure, full stop.

 - Ed Kyle

[chopsticks]

Ultimately it's the customer who decides whether they got what they needed or not. It's like having Amazon drop your parcel off halfway to your house and telling you that you need to pick it up and take it home. Far from ideal and more a "failure" than not IMO.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/shorealonefilms/status/1738610038980362596

Launch day views from the @Firefly_Space #FlyTheLightning Mission from @SLDelta30 more to come!! @LockheedMartin 12-23-23

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1738615327045321179

🚀Liftoff of @Firefly_Space's Alpha #FLTA004 'Fly The Lightning' mission⚡️

[sdsds]

EDIT: Cancel and replace.

I have a glimmer of hope, based on what is likely a flawed physical model, that under constant thrust and absent atmospheric drag Tantrum could have raised both its orbital perigee and apogee by 1 km in 2.28 days.

Sadly, Celestrak data (https://celestrak.org/NORAD/elements/table.php?INTDES=2023-202) seem to indicate that atmospheric drag is winning.

[jimvela]

Sadly, Celestrak data (https://celestrak.org/NORAD/elements/table.php?INTDES=2023-202) seem to indicate that atmospheric drag is winning.

The Celestrak data looks to me like there is ONLY a slow orbital decay happening.
I don't see evidence for any significant spacecraft thrusting taking place- or if any is, as you note drag is winning.

[jcm]

EDIT: Cancel and replace.

I have a glimmer of hope, based on what is likely a flawed physical model, that under constant thrust and absent atmospheric drag Tantrum could have raised both its orbital perigee and apogee by 1 km in 2.28 days.

Sadly, Celestrak data (https://celestrak.org/NORAD/elements/table.php?INTDES=2023-202) seem to indicate that atmospheric drag is winning.

I would not expect them to even have begun thrusting yet. Will likely take a few days
to plan an emergency mission *if* they should do so.
Most likely: will just be allowed to decay.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1738743925576282330

🚀Liftoff of @Firefly_Space's Alpha #FLTA004 'Fly The Lightning' mission⚡️

[Zed_Noir]

EDIT: Cancel and replace.

I have a glimmer of hope, based on what is likely a flawed physical model, that under constant thrust and absent atmospheric drag Tantrum could have raised both its orbital perigee and apogee by 1 km in 2.28 days.

Sadly, Celestrak data (https://celestrak.org/NORAD/elements/table.php?INTDES=2023-202) seem to indicate that atmospheric drag is winning.

I would not expect them to even have begun thrusting yet. Will likely take a few days
to plan an emergency mission *if* they should do so.
Most likely: will just be allowed to decay.

Disagree. They still can get valuable engineering data for various systems of the spacecraft even if it doesn't make orbit. Maybe the spacecraft can stay up long enough to do some tests with the ESA array.

[sdsds]

Not getting any better. (Apologies to Celestrak for somehow losing their logo while cleaning up the image.)

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/trevormahlmann/status/1738901516625301823

🚀Liftoff of @Firefly_Space's Alpha #FLTA004 'Fly The Lightning' mission⚡️

[deltaV]

'Fly The Lightning' mission⚡️

I'll hazard a guess that the probable cause of the anomaly is a sign error in the launch commit criteria.

[sdsds]

Still only lumps of coal in the stocking.

[briantipton]

Either way, it appears that three of the first four Alpha's have failed, two at second stage restart. 

 - Ed Kyle

Does anyone happen to have breakdown of how many launch failures (for either the US or the world) have been due to an upper stage problem vs a booster problem (using the strict definition of failure to achieve target orbit safely)? My gut says more failures are due to upper stages, but I haven't taken the time to dig up all the numbers.

[edkyle99]

Either way, it appears that three of the first four Alpha's have failed, two at second stage restart. 

 - Ed Kyle

Does anyone happen to have breakdown of how many launch failures (for either the US or the world) have been due to an upper stage problem vs a booster problem (using the strict definition of failure to achieve target orbit safely)? My gut says more failures are due to upper stages, but I haven't taken the time to dig up all the numbers.

Not comprehensive, but a quick look at the past two years shows 18 total failures, during the following phases of flight.
Stage 1:  3
Stage 2:  12
Stage 3:  1
Stage 4:  1
Fairing:   1

 - Ed Kyle

[VLN]

Disagree. They still can get valuable engineering data for various systems of the spacecraft even if it doesn't make orbit. Maybe the spacecraft can stay up long enough to do some tests with the ESA array.

A well-managed technology development team relying on serial no. 4 launch vehicle should have planned for a shortened mission, or at least prioritized their ESA demo objectives so they’d be ready to reorder their procedures to hit the most important ones first. If they came armed for that situation, they might then rate the launch as disappointing but good enough. I fully agree with chopsticks that launch vehicle success is in they eye of the customer; I would add that an agile customer is more likely to be a happy customer.