Author Topic: LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET March 20 (Attempt 2) (Read 265155 times)

Danderman · « **Reply #340 on:** 03/21/2007 01:07 am »

Quote

Stargazin2nite - 20/3/2007 7:03 PM Also, in contrast to Mr. Musk's enthusiam, I am guessing that the engineers who specified, designed, built, verified, and validated the ill-fated payload are likely not thrilled tonight.

I had the impression that the "payload" were actually instruments that flew attached to the second stage, and may well have operated during the ascent.

meiza · « **Reply #341 on:** 03/21/2007 01:07 am »

This is why you fly test flights!
I have now much higher confidence in SpaceX than before.
The most expensive part, the first stage, seemed to work allright.

ringshot · « **Reply #342 on:** 03/21/2007 01:07 am »

Will there be a video download link put on this thread?

nacnud · « **Reply #343 on:** 03/21/2007 01:08 am »

1st stage in the Atlantic? That can't be right not after only 2 mins of powered flight. The second stage probably ended there though.

Paul Adams · « **Reply #344 on:** 03/21/2007 01:08 am »

I second that, a great effort form Space X . Well done guys, they deserve our support!

Paul

Lee Jay · « **Reply #345 on:** 03/21/2007 01:09 am »

What I saw on the real-time video at staging:

- First stage went laterally away from the location of the camera
- First stage struck, or nearly missed the second stage nozzle on the camera side
- Second stage attitude responded with the nozzle going toward the camera - this indicates the attitude change was from the lateral motion of the first stage at staging, not from a nozzle strike which would have pushed it the other way
- Second stage nozzle rapidly swiveled drastically toward the camera to correct this attitude motion
- Engine ignited
- Second stage attitude very rapidly corrected
- Second stage seemed stable for a moment
- The oscillation started

In other words, the staging event was not clean as I saw it, strike or no strike. I have no idea if it was related to the oscillation or not.

Overall, the coolest staging video I've ever seen, especially in real-time. Congratulations to the team for a pretty successful second launch attempt.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #346 on:** 03/21/2007 01:09 am »

Quote

ringshot - 21/3/2007 2:07 AM

Will there be a video download link put on this thread?

Due to being killed on bandwidth, we're sticking with the 77mb (T-15 all the way through) on L2 for now.

zerm · « **Reply #347 on:** 03/21/2007 01:09 am »

I LOVE L2!! Just a few minutes after the launch and here I sit reviewing the video on my computer! Thanks skinny and thanks Chris for L2!
BTW- that almost looks like propellant sloshing to my untrained eye- it'll be intresting to see what they find.

sammie · « **Reply #348 on:** 03/21/2007 01:09 am »

Quote

I've always ultimately wanted to reduce the cost by a factor of 10. The next lowest cost US launch vehicle from a Falcon 1 is the Pegasus by Orbital sciences, which is about $35 million, while Falcon 1 is about $7 million, so we are 5 times cheaper than I nearest competitor.

Its a good thing Mr Musk isn't trying to compete on the global market

There are a few lines that don't add up in that statement if you don't mind my world view.

Danderman · « **Reply #349 on:** 03/21/2007 01:10 am »

With South America downrange, I don't think its a trivial issue where the second stage came down.

Another issue is the loss of telemetry. With a "normal" control system failure, there would still be data streams after the loss of control, indicating exactly what the problem was. In this case, it seems to have been an abrupt cutoff of telemetry, indicating that something in the power/telemetry system failed catastrophically.

Zachstar · « **Reply #350 on:** 03/21/2007 01:10 am »

I seriously hope they get back that 1st stage.. Clean it and launch again.

I don't care if they have nothing to put on it. Ill donate my computer if they want to be the first to send a gateway PC into space!

Jim · « **Reply #351 on:** 03/21/2007 01:11 am »

Quote

meiza - 20/3/2007 10:07 PM

This is why you fly test flights!
I have now much higher confidence in SpaceX than before.
The most expensive part, the first stage, seemed to work allright.

Expensive part is the second stage. Avionics, fairing, payload adapter, different engine, etc

braddock · « **Reply #352 on:** 03/21/2007 01:11 am »

Q: It looks like you went rhough quite a bit of rain on the way up. Was it raining on the ground at launch time? Is there any suspicion that that may have contributed to the problems later on?

A: It was not raining on the ground. the water you saw was water in the clouds. "it demonstrated that a flight through rain is not an issue." "I think it is unlikley to have contributed to any issues."

Q: It looked like after the fairing sep there was some debris floating around.
A: What you might have seen...there are some titanium half-loops used to stabelize the nozzel on ascent. The bonding agent comes off once you start the engine, and the titanium loops fall away, which occurred as expected.

"I think we may have done the fastest recycle on a rocket start." [wanted to know if our users might know better than he]

JesseD · « **Reply #353 on:** 03/21/2007 01:11 am »

Quote

nacnud - 20/3/2007 10:08 PM

Atlantic? That can't be right not after only 2 mins of powered flight.

My replay shows at least 5:00 of powered flight , +/- 5sec, before the roll moment started increasing exponentially and the 2nd stage started veering off course.

Stargazin2nite · « **Reply #354 on:** 03/21/2007 01:12 am »

Danderman -- good point -- I just checked the payload in more detail and it does look like instrumentation to characterize the launch. At first I was under the impression that DARPA was adding an additional functional satellite, but that appears not to be the case.

In any event, I am still amazed that a company with only 250 people have accomplished this!

SteveOliver · « **Reply #355 on:** 03/21/2007 01:12 am »

Quote

meiza - 20/3/2007 10:07 PM

This is why you fly test flights!
I have now much higher confidence in SpaceX than before.
The most expensive part, the first stage, seemed to work allright.

And the second stage of the larger Falcons use the Merlin, so this failure may only relate to the Falcon 1.

Jim · « **Reply #356 on:** 03/21/2007 01:13 am »

Quote

Zachstar - 20/3/2007 10:10 PM

I seriously hope they get back that 1st stage.. Clean it and launch again.

I don't care if they have nothing to put on it. Ill donate my computer if they want to be the first to send a gateway PC into space!

The stage is recoverable not reuseable. First launch attempt showed that. It can't handle the salt air environment and now you want to reuse a stage that was in salt water

rsnellenberger · « **Reply #357 on:** 03/21/2007 01:13 am »

Watching the video that "Skinny" uploaded to L2, it's clear that there was contact at separation -- looks like the contact occurs at around the 5 o'clock position on the bell (from the video's POV) -- you can see the bell react to the impact before the start transient. There's also a band at the bottom of the engine bell that begins to separate at about the T+3:08 mark (at about the 3 o'clock position) and flies off completely at the 3:13 mark -- that one looks more like some kind of clamp band, though, so that might have happened on purpose...

pmoon · « **Reply #358 on:** 03/21/2007 01:13 am »

Any clue where the second stage should be reentering and if it would be visible?

harryw · « **Reply #359 on:** 03/21/2007 01:13 am »

I have now sat through hours and hours to watch 2 launches in which SpaceX dropped the video the second things went bad. Won't make that mistake anymore...