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

[aero313]

landofgrey - 21/3/2007  2:48 AM

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,

What part of "Pegasus was completely developed with private investment" was not clear.  Same goes for Taurus and Lockheed Athena.

[faramund]

I'm sorry too, higher up you implied you were an (eager) investor. Investor's must look into the future and deal with uncertainty. Of course, you try to minimise that uncertainty, but if you only invest in things you are absolutely certain in, about all that leaves is fixed-interest rate investments, and even then you are making assumptions about future inflation rates. i.e. in a roundabout way, I guess I'm saying it seems unreasonable to demand absolute certainties about the future.

[charlieb]

What were the overall goals of this mission?  Surely - if it was to make it to orbit, it is not so successful is it?  Would one want to risk flying an expensive payload (commercial or otherwise)on such an unproven launch vehicle at this stage?  I don't think so.  I'll will grant you all that yes - the vehicle did much better in clearing the atmosphere this time, BUT they have (and did have) a serious issue with 1st-2nd stage separation being clean (it was not), and then 2nd stage attitude control issues (the vsry serious 'coning' of the vehicle was a sign of control-loop saturation brought on by "who know's what", and just add on propellent sloshing in that coning motion and - well one can imagine..  It's very feasable and probable that the impact of the 1st stage on the nozzle caused some form of damage (misalignment of the thrust actuators mythe big fear) which may have caused the roll control thrusters to run out of gas through compensating for misalignment..  One theory..  Good effort (VERY impressive that they recycled a botched ignition sequence due to low chamber pressures - who else could do that? - no one that I know of).  It's bad ju-ju  to be popping champagne right after liftoff anyway.  One has to wait until the payload is successfully orbited - THEN you can celebrate.

[DaveS]

Well, I have examined the launch video a few times now and there seems to be two ring separation events:
1: At T+ 3 mins, 13 secs, two rigid rings at the base of the Kestrel engine nozzle is getting blown apart
2: At T+ 3 mins, 17 secs, one flexible ring is seen leaving the vicinity of the second stage right after PLF sep

Also, another thing noticed is a crack of some sort going around the central part of the nozzle. I've done some preliminary research and there's not supposed to be any gap or void in that particular area of the nozzle. And it only seems to go around the side of the nozzle that is facing the camera.

[McDew]

I would like to offer a big time congratulations to SpaceX.  This was the most impressive DEMO launch I have ever watched.  To see them perform a hot fire abort, recycle and launch is exactly what Operationally Responsive launch is attempting to demonstrate.  I am dissapointed they fell short, but they successfully demonstated the start and burn of their second stage which is another major milestone.

I believe they successfully met their primary Demo objectives just like Delta IV HLV met most of their Demo objectives.  Neither was a complete success, which is why they planned it as a Demo.

[lmike]

faramund - 21/3/2007  5:45 AM

I'm sorry too, higher up you implied you were an (eager) investor. Investor's must look into the future and deal with uncertainty. Of course, you try to minimise that uncertainty, but if you only invest in things you are absolutely certain in, about all that leaves is fixed-interest rate investments, and even then you are making assumptions about future inflation rates. i.e. in a roundabout way, I guess I'm saying it seems unreasonable to demand absolute certainties about the future.

I look at the basics (the market demand, the supply to satisfy the market).  If I like them, and they provide return, I invest.  I like the SpaceX basics, but they don't provide (so far to my regret) the return in the market.  So, no go for me, for now.

[aero313]

faramund - 21/3/2007  7:38 AM

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.

Funny how Elon spins this up to $35M...

Also, once again, the NASA contract contains MANY, MANY requirements that add costs not included in the $7M number.  This is like saying a Yugo is the same as a Civic for one third the price.  Finally, in the Air Force RSS contract (the "$100M" contract Elon keeps touting), the SpaceX price is $13M.  The Raptor (Pegasus with a different name) price is $16M.  Funny how when the contract scope is the same, the price is comparable...

[DaveS]

And for you who doubts that the stage rolled before LOS: Watch the video again and this time keep a close eye on the horizon. Initially, it's diagonal but towards the end it goes vertical.

The only attitude change that have this effect, is a roll attitude change.

[faramund]

McDew - 21/3/2007  11:49 PM

I would like to offer a big time congratulations to SpaceX.  This was the most impressive DEMO launch I have ever watched.  To see them perform a hot fire abort, recycle and launch is exactly what Operationally Responsive launch is attempting to demonstrate.  I am dissapointed they fell short, but they successfully demonstated the start and burn of their second stage which is another major milestone.

I believe they successfully met their primary Demo objectives just like Delta IV HLV met most of their Demo objectives.  Neither was a complete success, which is why they planned it as a Demo.

This also ties into the whole old/new paradigm issues. In the old world, if you tested a shuttle launch and it blew up, what do you lose.. a few billion dollars worth of hardware and human lives,
Delta IV HLV, what ~$300million. So you have to spend seriously large money testing every possible problem, and it is a sign of a seriously flawed or ambitious program when flaws occur. With spaceX, each test costs ~$7m, so you still need to spend money to eliminate problems, but its not worth spending serious money. As long as they're not trying to launch valuable payloads, and the test program is progressing - the program is going well.

[CuddlyRocket]

Congratulations to SpaceX. Not a successful flight, but certainly a successful test flight (early test flights with no failures at all are pretty useless as you're uncertain whether or not you simply got lucky!).

Unless the roll (or yaw, or whatever) problem on the second stage requires a complete re-design and not some tweaking, I think it's clear that SpaceX will very probably achieve a demonstrated (and yes, 'demonstrated' is ultimately what counts) ability to launch small payloads into LEO for a significant reduction in launch costs. That should give it a market, but it's not clear how much of an expansion of the overall market in this sector this will bring about - though I would've thought that the microsat market is particularly sensitive to price.

More importantly, it will increase confidence in the ultimate success of the larger Falcon 9, with all its COTS implications.

Overall, not a quantum leap in improving launch costs, but steady improvement nonetheless. Personally, I feel that it will be steady incremental gains that will give us the low launch cost environment we seek, rather than some silver bullet.

[pippin]

So, back online after a busy night ;-) Too bad the video stream was a bit bumpy through the mobile phone network I had to use to view it ;-) ;-)

Congratulations to SpaceX, I think they did achieve quite a lot for a now and I think they will learn even more from this try.

The turnaround after the first try was exciting to watch, but then from their perspective, this also was a lot of lerning: Fuel temperature, engine robustness, RF issues (yesterday).... Guess there's a lot of issues we just will not see on the next try.

One thing we should not forget is, they are building the complete enterprise from scratch, not only the launcher. When Boeing or Arianespace are building and testing a new vehicle, they have all these procedures and experience from former flights and vehicles... and all the overhead. This is exactly what SpaceX is trying to get rid of. If you want to build a lean enterprise it is my experience that you have NO CHANCE to start with a fat one and then try to slim it down. The comparison with the computer industry holds: You have to start on the low end and expand... However, that means you have to go through the learning curve again to find out which are the NECESSARY quality procedures.

Someone mentioned the greybeards before, who knew everything in advance. Experience this is called. It is what I would require if I would want to lauch people or something important. They know how to make a very reliable launcher. But not a cheap one. You only get to a cheap solution if you get rid of the 80% or so procedures that are NOT necessary, however, if you do that on an existing quality regime it's gonna fall apart, you'll need a new one.

I do see steady progress with SpaceX (they got to the middle of their 2nd stage burn this time) if they continue like this the next one might even be a success. And if they manage that with 20% of the procedures (and associated costs) of the existing systems, this will be a REAL REVOLUTION since they are in place then to apply this to larger systems like Falcon 9.

Elon should cut back on rethorics, however. If he acted like he talks ("should be easy to fix") they would not have achieved this.

Also, their real cost structure should be interesting. They started with 6.7 mil $ a flight. Seeing the changes they made so far I would assume they hit at least 10 mil as of now. Which would still be quite a success...

Anyhow. Looking forward to the next launch. Way more exiting than "well, our weather ballon came back red so we are going to scrub today, see you tomorrow" kind of exciting count downs...

[rumble]

rsnellenberger - 20/3/2007  11:58 PM

rumble - 20/3/2007  10:22 PM  Watch the video at high speed (windows media player 11 allows up to 16x playback speed).  The recontact after stage sep:  It looks almost as if the 2nd stage had a forced pitch...  almost as if 3 of 4 ullage thrusters fired (not sure if falcon has these).  The second stage turned and bumped the 1st stage with the engine bell.  After the contact, the 2nd stage started again to accelerate in the same direction.  Had the kestrel not started when it did, the 2nd stage may have started an end-over-end roll.

I haven't seen anything about the technique they're using to separate the stages, but it almost looks as though they didn't get a complete separation on the left side (as you look at the video) -- wondering if something didn't get cut cleanly.  That would explain the sharp yaw at separation, causing the contact *as well* as the exaggerated yaw after the engine bell gets clear of the 1st stage.

That wouldn't have explained the rotational acceleration AFTER the re-contact.  It looks as if a force was acting on the 2nd stage.  JonSBerndt mentioned either aerodynamic forces or thrusters.  

Was Falcon I still low enough to have aerodynamic forces of that magnitude?
If so, that tells me something else I suspected (that another poster wrote--sorry can't find the post now), which is the entire vehicle pitched away from 0-degree AOA.  That certainly could have caused the accelerative force.  But would it have affected the 2nd stage more than the empty 1st stage?
Actually aerodynamic forces would almost completely explain what I saw in the video, because the 1st stage started tumbling the same direction the 2nd stage was.  AND the aerodynamic force would have caused a rotational acceleration (until it reached 90-degrees AOA).

They may need active attitude thrusters to zero any moments induced by short-duration asynchronous thrust at stage 1 MECO...before staging.  Jim mentioned something to this effect.

[Avron]

DaveS - 21/3/2007  8:57 AM

And for you who doubts that the stage rolled before LOS: Watch the video again and this time keep a close eye on the horizon. Initially, it's diagonal but towards the end it goes vertical.

The only attitude change that have this effect, is a roll attitude change.

No question it rolled.. but I think the rate of decay in control was going exponetial at that point...

My question would be it this a control issue or a component failure issue (damage or failed/leaked)?

[Bill White]

lmike - 21/3/2007  7:51 AM

faramund - 21/3/2007  5:45 AM

I'm sorry too, higher up you implied you were an (eager) investor. Investor's must look into the future and deal with uncertainty. Of course, you try to minimise that uncertainty, but if you only invest in things you are absolutely certain in, about all that leaves is fixed-interest rate investments, and even then you are making assumptions about future inflation rates. i.e. in a roundabout way, I guess I'm saying it seems unreasonable to demand absolute certainties about the future.

I look at the basics (the market demand, the supply to satisfy the market).  If I like them, and they provide return, I invest.  I like the SpaceX basics, but they don't provide (so far to my regret) the return in the market.  So, no go for me, for now.

I believe Elon Musk would agree with you.

I clearly recall Musk saying (within the last year or so) that he was keeping SpaceX privately held because he could not make a case that a prudent investor should invest in his company. He said he did not want to be accused of taking other people's money under false pretenses.

That kind of talk merely reinforces my desire to see SpaceX succeed, and succeed fabulously.

[lmike]

Just to make sure I'm not (seemingly continuously;) ) misunderstood here, I do want SpaceX (Not Only!, and other 'alt.space' outfits to compete, I want real competition!!!  If SpaceX becomes just another conglomerate, it'd be of no use) companies to succeed.  Investment opportunities would be better for all of us.

[Avron]

DId they get the first stage back?

[Danderman]

DaveS - 21/3/2007  5:57 AM  And for you who doubts that the stage rolled before LOS: Watch the video again and this time keep a close eye on the horizon. Initially, it's diagonal but towards the end it goes vertical.  The only attitude change that have this effect, is a roll attitude change.

You are correct, at the end of the video there is finally a true roll. But, it doesn't seem to be rolling at a very high rate, certainly not a high enough rate to cut off telemetry.

 

[pippin]

Elon ist a High risk investor so he demands a high return. If he goes public before they demonstrated their capabilities, risk would be extremely high (not only on the technology side, but also on the cost side because you simply don't know how much you will have to change), he will get much less buck for the bang (so to say) than afterwards. Having invested so much until now, he certainly would want to wait for that if he could.

As long as he burns his own money on this (plus maybe some subsidies, but I don't think they make money on this), I stay confident about their success...

I would buy their shares. Immediately.

It's always good to have someone incharge who's own money is at risk. We had a similar outfit here in Germany that claimed to revolutionize Heavy Lift transport (Cargolifter). The went public from the beginning and it turned out they burned LOTS of money with little result.

But their ommunication was way more impressive than SpaceX'. ;-)

[charlieb]

At the altitude of separation we noted - there would be little aerodynamics at that point (just look at the exhaust plume and how expanded and clear it is at that point) - therefore it's a physical separation without any real atmospheric affects causing the contact issue.  The first stage clearly contacted the nozzle, imparting a rather large tipping force in either the yaw or pitch attitudes on the second stage - and a little roll as well.  One can then see clearly at second stage motor ignition the engine bell swivel (momentary to hard stop no doubt) to counteract the tip off momentum, and obviously the roll jets straightened up the minor roll attitude excursion.  

As I suggested late last evening - sep motors need to be attached to either the second or first stage (or both maybe) to force a fast and cleaner separation from the stages..It's a simple, elegant - and well proven method.  A little extra weight to make a safer and more reliable launcher is cheap insurance.

I now really wonder if the trajectory was correct - just look at the way the earth receeds in the camera view - it's as if the FALCON is being launched virtually straight up!  I would think at this point that one might note the earth starting to 'rotate' away vs. the islands getting smaller and smaller in the climbout uphill..

[aero313]

charlieb - 21/3/2007  9:55 AM
As I suggested late last evening - sep motors need to be attached to either the second or first stage (or both maybe) to force a fast and cleaner separation from the stages..It's a simple, elegant - and well proven method.  A little extra weight to make a safer and more reliable launcher is cheap insurance.

They also add cost and reduce reliability.  Every part you add to the vehicle (expecially energetics) requires purchasing, installation labor, checkout, etc.  In addition if you're talking about solid propellant sep motors, there's a new safety hazard that complicates ops.  Lots of vehicles separate with springs or even just a hot fire of the upper stage.  The bigger concern to me is the individual sep nuts that might have timing issues (but it worked in the simulation...)