LIVE: SpaceX - Falcon I (Mk.II) NET March 20 (Attempt 2)

[landofgrey]

Orbit or not, today history was made. NO entrepreneurial space launch company has ever been able to even attempt a launch to orbit, not in the last 30 years. so SpaceX continues to blaze the way, so to speak and in more ways than one. I tipped a Guinness in congrats tonight and now i'm headed to bed. Was today an exciting, and exhausting day or what??? WOW. Cutoff on the pad and then to just recycle and try again. That was the most cool thing of all. Lots of confidence in their rocket, that's for sure, and what you would want the company to have. Good work to SpaceX. Next time... orbit... and goodnight to all.

[Exci]

Post from Elon on the Spacex website:

"The second test launch of Falcon 1 took place today at 6:10 pm California time.  The launch was not perfect, but certainly pretty good.  Given that the primary objectives were demonstrating responsive launch and gathering test data in advance of our first operational satellite launch later this year, the outcome was great.  Operationally responsive (ie fast) launch has become an increasingly important national security objective, so demonstrating rapid loading of propellents and launch in less than an hour, as well as a rapid recycle following the first engine ignition are major accomplishments.

We retired almost all of the significant development risk items, in particular:

- 1st stage ascent past max dynamic pressure

- avionics operation in vacuum and under radiation

- stage separation

- 2nd stage ignition

- fairing separation

- 2nd stage nozzle/chamber at steady state temp in vacuum

Falcon flew far beyond the "edge" of space, typically thought of as around 60 miles.  Our altitude was approximately 200 miles, which is just 50 miles below the International Space Station.  The second stage didn't achieve full orbital velocity, due to a roll excitation late in the burn, but that should be a comparatively easy fix once we examine the flight data.  Since it is impossible to ground test the second stage under the same conditions it would see in spaceflight, this anomaly was also something that would have been very hard to determine without a test launch.  

All in all, this test has flight proven 95+ percent of the Falcon 1 systems, which bodes really well for our upcoming flights of Falcon 1 and Falcon 9, which uses similar hardware.  We do not expect any significant delay in the upcoming flights at this point.  The Dept of Defense satellite launch is currently scheduled for late Summer and the Malaysian satellite for the Fall.

I'd like to thank DARPA and the Air Force for buying the two test flights and helping us work through a number of challenges over the past year.  I'd also like to express my appreciation for the efforts of the  Kwajalein Army Range (Reagan Test Site) and we look forward to many more launches in the future.

Finally, thank you to everyone at SpaceX for working so hard to make this a great test.  This is a big leap forward for commercial spaceflight!

--Elon--"

[Eeyore3061]

mikegi - 21/3/2007  1:14 AM

Not a rocket scientist ... but after watching the separation part of the free video a couple of times I noticed an interesting thing. It looks like the Falcon tipped/curved significantly to the left shortly before the separation. Starting at 2:25-2:30, look in the darker area in the center of the screen. That appears to be the Earth showing through. You can see features moving to the left, especially the vertical white shoreline. At 2:30 it starts to appear on the right side then makes its way to the center at separation. After the violent bump, the white shoreline is in the upper left behind the dropped stage.

I was looking at the video again also.  One thing that stood out to me was the heating pattern on the 2nd stage bell.  It *looked* like there was uneven abative wear from the heat glow/shadowing.  Could that have led to such a radical movement of the engine that was observed?  And if so, just how old was that bell/combustion chamber and what enviorment had they been exposed to after manufacuter?

Michael.

[lmike]

At one level it was a success: it failed at a later stage than before.  At another, it was an utter failure: it failed to deliver its payload to its destination orbit a second timer.  If we be honest, SpaceX *is* competing against other available launchers now.  We shouldn't give it any 'slack' just because they are newcomers to the business.  (it wouldn't be fair to SpaceX's goals either)  Personally, I wish them more luck on their subsequent launches and more fortitude to persevere the fallback financially.

[Arto]

At one level it was a success: it failed at a later stage than before.  At another, it was an utter failure: it failed to deliver its payload to its destination orbit a second timer.

I wonder at all this hostility. It was a test/demonstration flight, after all. From http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5051:

The Falcon I will be carrying Demosat (LCT2 / AFSS), which is a demonstration for DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), along with two small experiments for NASA.

The primary DARPA objective for this mission is to gather flight data on the Falcon 1 launch vehicle and supporting systems. A secondary objective is to separate a payload into LEO, to place the second stage into the planned final orbit, and demonstratiing AFSS using the LCT2 for telemetering data back to Kwajalein and to Wallops Flight Facility.

In light of the mission objectives, it's a bit harsh to try and spin this as an "utter" failure.

[vda]

Chris Bergin - 20/3/2007  6:37 AM
Apologies about the site getting a bit sluggish at times (very sluggish for a few minutes). Simply a case of us getting absolutely hammered (even with our cool new server). Some of it will be to do with the forum software (although it makes it more interactive etc.), but the webmasters will sort it as they always do.

The only other time we got sluggish was the last Shuttle launch and that was the old server, so we should be close to accomodating this very big audience we're getting now with extra buffer room.

Is it a bandwidth problem or server load problem?

if bandwidth: you can check how caching attributes are set on all static data being loaded (like images) so that smarter browsers do not try to fetch them again and again. Also you can reduce image filesizes by careful processing (posterizing, experimenting with formats etc). Currently nsf_logo.png at the top left is 60kb, amro2.gif at top right is 37kb, "Join L2" is 75kb. Thus more than 150kb are always the same on each and every forum page. Quick tests show that these can be made 1.5 - 2 times smaller without visible degradation of image.
If only someone can teach browsers that F5 "reload" means "reload only text please, not gifs/pngs/jpegs!!"... but it's not fixable on server side 8(

if server load: maybe place a squid box configured into web accelerator mode in front of your server, unloading all static content handling out of main server.

[lmike]

Arto - 21/3/2007  3:46 AM

At one level it was a success: it failed at a later stage than before.  At another, it was an utter failure: it failed to deliver its payload to its destination orbit a second timer.

I wonder at all this hostility. It was a test/demonstration flight, after all. From http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5051:

The Falcon I will be carrying Demosat (LCT2 / AFSS), which is a demonstration for DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), along with two small experiments for NASA.

The primary DARPA objective for this mission is to gather flight data on the Falcon 1 launch vehicle and supporting systems. A secondary objective is to separate a payload into LEO, to place the second stage into the planned final orbit, and demonstratiing AFSS using the LCT2 for telemetering data back to Kwajalein and to Wallops Flight Facility.

In light of the mission objectives, it's a bit harsh to try and spin this as an "utter" failure.

No, I didn't, and don't, have a 'hostility' against SpaceX.  I'm a perspective (eager) investor.  I simply view launches and observe the results.  I *do* want them to succeed.  They haven't, so far.

[edit] as for the "spin", well, the "spin" the other way is in no way better

[faramund]

Ahem... my first post to this forum. I'm in the computing industry, and the really amazing thing over the last 10 years or so is how the internet and computing have disrupted old commercial organisations and introduced strong competition into what were fairly locked-up markets. Its very inspiring to see Elon take his money from the computing world, and then replicate that disruption over in the launch industry. From that perspective I strongly understand the antagonism directed at him - its the same which old bookstores aimed at Amazon. Still, it didn't stop Amazon, and it won't stop SpaceX.

[lmike]

faramund - 21/3/2007  4:22 AM
... Its very inspiring to see Elon take his money from the computing world, and then replicate that disruption over in the launch industry.
...

Well, steady now..., Elon hasn't replicated any disruption over in the launch industry, yet..., other than some failed launch videos. ( to my regret )

[faramund]

lmike - 21/3/2007  10:28 PM

faramund - 21/3/2007  4:22 AM
... Its very inspiring to see Elon take his money from the computing world, and then replicate that disruption over in the launch industry.
...

Well, steady now..., Elon hasn't replicated any disruption over in the launch industry, yet..., other than some failed launch videos. ( to my regret )

But this is exactly along the lines of what I mean. Most industries look at future trends, and if they see a strong potential shift in their market, they try to adjust for it. At $7 million a pop, what would it take.. it would be hard to imagine that spaceX needs another 4 launches to get Falcon I reliable. Following on, from  http://explorers.larc.nasa.gov/PDF_FILES/AO-SMEX-ELV-final.pdf
NASA quotes $29 million for a Pegasus launch. If it takes 4 launches to get Falcon I right, that's less than 1 Pegasus launch. Surely Orbital must be thinking very strongly about their future today, while the producers of larger launch vehicles are surely considering their options.

[tedcraft]

Congrats to SpaceX on as far as they got.  It was impressive they launched the same day they had a pad abort.

Assuming the 2nd stage shut down with a loss of control at about 315 seconds, the inertial velocity at that point was about half needed for orbit.  That would indicate an impact point about 1,000 nautical miles downrange.

[JonSBerndt]

It is surprising to me to see comments about "hostility" towards SpaceX here. I haven't seen anything that approaches that. What's been under discussion is a "post-game" analysis of why the vehicle failed to achieve orbit on this test flight.

Jon

[EE Scott]

lmike - 21/3/2007  7:28 AM

faramund - 21/3/2007  4:22 AM
... Its very inspiring to see Elon take his money from the computing world, and then replicate that disruption over in the launch industry.
...

Well, steady now..., Elon hasn't replicated any disruption over in the launch industry, yet..., other than some failed launch videos. ( to my regret )

Agreed.  In fact, these two launch failures make organization like ULA and Arianespace look better and better by comparison to potential customers.  SpaceX is proving once again just how difficult and complex getting something to a pre-determined orbit is.  If I were Elon, I would open my wallet further and get another test flight (or two) under my belt.  It seems obvious that they need way more data points that what they have -- two launch attempts in two years, both failed to orbit.  Remember Delta III?  Weren't the first two launches failures?  What did Boeing do?  They paid out of their own pocket for a demonstration flight to prove that their vehicle could do what it was designed for.

I give SpaceX a lot of credit, as their program seems to be progressing positively, and I've been a big fan since I first heard about them years ago.  If they stick with it, I'm sure their vehicle will mature to the point of being operational, which would have a significant impact on the launch industry within that weight class.  But when they keep talking about Falcon 9 and all their other grand plans, when they can't get their simplest and most robust design working yet, I think they need to just roll their sleeves up and do test launch after test launch until they get the bugs out.  That's really the only way to do it, I would think.  Look at how many spectacular failures occured in some very famous rockets early development cycle, such as Atlas.  No shame in going through this learning phase, but just don't rush things too much.

[Jim]

jimvela - 20/3/2007  11:02 PM

marsavian - 20/3/2007  8:46 PM
a bold quote

'He doesn't foresee needing another test flight before launching the first operational mission in late summer carrying the U.S. military's TacSat 1 spacecraft.'

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sfn_070320_spacex_falc1cntdwn.html

Well at least he's consistently in character.  You have to be a bit arrogant to lead a bunch of scientists, engineers, techs, and associated riffraff :-).  He's also demonstrated that he can and does learn.  Oh, to be a fly on the wall tomorrow back in El Segundo...
 

Next up is more learning curve:  Bring on the various government inspectors associated with launching a US asset.

DCMA, anyone?

Government inspectors, especially DCMA, do not work launches.  The US Gov't no longer owns expendable launch vehicles and so gov't inspectors do not work on them.

For NASA missions, there are engineers that monitor certain operations, with emphasis on the integrated ops (where the payload is involved).  But there is no quality inspectors.

NASA had engineers at Kwaj for this flight

[faramund]

I agree that I wouldn't want to put a valuable payload on Falcon now, but isn't the next flight - the OSD/NRL just a variant on the last two Demoflights, i.e. a form of government subsidy. I get the impression that $7 million is peanuts to the sponsoring organisations, but politically they can't be seen to just be throwing money at a private company. So won't OSD/NRL be happy to be further helping their goal of cheaper launch costs, even with the potential of a failed fairly unimportant launch. On the other hand, if the OSD/NRL launch fails, I assume the Malaysians will hold off.

[Jim]

WHAP - 20/3/2007  10:54 PM

Eeyore3061 - 20/3/2007  8:46 PM

Danderman - 20/3/2007  10:39 PM

I was not aware that pressure fed engines require ullage motors.

Yes, to keep them from swallowing a bubble of pressurant.  

... and possably locking up the lines    

Michael.

I haven't heard them called "ullage motors" before, but I doubt they would do any good before the second stage's first burn.  They are usually very low thrust and would not have had much of an effect in the short time from separation to engine burn.

They are always called ullage motors and they are always used on the first burn at staging and provide high thrust.

Not all launch vehicles use them.  

Atlas prefers retro rockets on the first stage, while the Centaur has thrusters

Delta prefers large spring actuators with thrusters on the second stage

[Jim]

I think the comment about rain is wrong.  The water on the camera is from ice melting on the vehicle

[lmike]

faramund - 21/3/2007  4:38 AM

lmike - 21/3/2007  10:28 PM

faramund - 21/3/2007  4:22 AM
... Its very inspiring to see Elon take his money from the computing world, and then replicate that disruption over in the launch industry.
...

Well, steady now..., Elon hasn't replicated any disruption over in the launch industry, yet..., other than some failed launch videos. ( to my regret )

But this is exactly along the lines of what I mean. Most industries look at future trends, and if they see a strong potential shift in their market, they try to adjust for it. At $7 million a pop, what would it take.. it would be hard to imagine that spaceX needs another 4 launches to get Falcon I reliable. Following on, from  http://explorers.larc.nasa.gov/PDF_FILES/AO-SMEX-ELV-final.pdf
NASA quotes $29 million for a Pegasus launch. If it takes 4 launches to get Falcon I right, that's less than 1 Pegasus launch. Surely Orbital must be thinking very strongly about their future today, while the producers of larger launch vehicles are surely considering their options.

How much is a (successful) Falcon I launch in $'s ?  I simply don't know.

[faramund]

lmike - 21/3/2007  11:23 PM

How much is a (successful) Falcon I launch in $'s ?  I simply don't know.

From the point of view of Orbital, if you extrapolated, and even assumed that rather than $7m, it ended up being $14m, and it took another 4 years to occur - that destroys the near-future Pegasus market, so they would be foolish not to be planning for that NOW. It doesn't seem too overconfident to assume that SpaceX - falcon I - will beat one or both of the $14m, 4 year figures.

[lmike]

faramund - 21/3/2007  5:30 AM

lmike - 21/3/2007  11:23 PM

How much is a (successful) Falcon I launch in $'s ?  I simply don't know.

From the point of view of Orbital, if you extrapolated, and even assumed that rather than $7m, it ended up being $14m, and it took another 4 years to occur - that destroys the near-future Pegasus market, so they would be foolish not to be planning for that NOW. It doesn't seem too overconfident to assume that SpaceX - falcon I - will beat one or both of the $14m, 4 year figures.

I'm sorry, I can't assume anything, what you see is what you get, the Pegasus flies and delivers payloads at some $20+ mil..., but still...  What will be the final Falcon I ride price?  Exterpolations are dodgy... from my experience.