clongton - 21/3/2007 1:52 PMNeither engine suffered any anomolies. The avionics shut down Kestrel prior to orbital insertion because the 2nd stage roll control wasn't functioning properly. Despite failure to reach orbit, the fact that the avionics understood the roll problem and shut down the engine is testament to excelence..
clongton - 21/3/2007 1:52 PMIt's not the existing technology that was used to create these engines that makes them so impressive. It's the way the technology was combined and used. From the web site:...
nacnud - 21/3/2007 12:22 PMAs to the launch profile; looking down a slope is deceptive, it often looks steeper looking down than it does looking up.
Jim - 21/3/2007 6:02 PMQuoteclongton - 21/3/2007 1:52 PMNeither engine suffered any anomolies. The avionics shut down Kestrel prior to orbital insertion because the 2nd stage roll control wasn't functioning properly. Despite failure to reach orbit, the fact that the avionics understood the roll problem and shut down the engine is testament to excelence..Says who? I haven't seen anything that said the Falcon shut itself down. Nor anything that clears the Kestrel.
Chris Bergin - 21/3/2007 2:15 PMQuoteJim - 21/3/2007 6:02 PMQuoteclongton - 21/3/2007 1:52 PMNeither engine suffered any anomolies. The avionics shut down Kestrel prior to orbital insertion because the 2nd stage roll control wasn't functioning properly. Despite failure to reach orbit, the fact that the avionics understood the roll problem and shut down the engine is testament to excelence..Says who? I haven't seen anything that said the Falcon shut itself down. Nor anything that clears the Kestrel.Says Elon. The comments he made the media were transcribed into this thread, including "The roll-control anomaly did cause the second stage to shut off prematurely."
aero313 - 21/3/2007 2:04 PMQuoteclongton - 21/3/2007 1:52 PMIt's not the existing technology that was used to create these engines that makes them so impressive. It's the way the technology was combined and used. From the web site:...First, don't rely on SpaceX marketing materials to be an unbiased report on technology. There really is no bleeding edge technology in their rocket. That's not a criticism of the rocket, by the way. A low cost commercial launch system SHOULDN'T be pressing the state of the art. I just have a problem with people on this site and others treating Elon Musk like the second coming of Robert Goddard.
Jim - 21/3/2007 11:25 AM Falcon IV doesn't need the roll control, so how are they going to spin the use of the turbopump exhaust. The F-1 used it to cool the nozzle extension.
Falcon IX requires roll control for the 2nd stage, same as Falcon I.
aero313 - 21/3/2007 11:04 AMQuoteclongton - 21/3/2007 1:52 PMIt's not the existing technology that was used to create these engines that makes them so impressive. It's the way the technology was combined and used. From the web site:...First, don't rely on SpaceX marketing materials to be an unbiased report on technology. There really is no bleeding edge technology in their rocket. That's not a criticism of the rocket, by the way. A low cost commercial launch system SHOULDN'T be pressing the state of the art. I just have a problem with people on this site and others treating Elon Musk like the second coming of Robert Goddard.
Jim - 21/3/2007 2:25 PMF-1 also used RP-1 as hydraulic fluid. There were 5 of them so roll control wasn't neededTitan second stage (UDMH) and Delta IV CBC (H2) use turbopump exhaust roll control. Their propellants didn't have hydraulic fluid propertiesFalcon IV doesn't need the roll control, so how are they going to spin the use of the turbopump exhaust. The F-1 used it to cool the nozzle extension.
Danderman - 21/3/2007 1:28 PM QuoteJim - 21/3/2007 11:25 AM Falcon IV doesn't need the roll control, so how are they going to spin the use of the turbopump exhaust. The F-1 used it to cool the nozzle extension. Falcon IX requires roll control for the 2nd stage, same as Falcon I.
The merlin engine on the Falcon 9 second stage provides the roll control with it's pump exhaust. It worked fine on yesterdays launch. They probably will still need RCS for the second stage though, which is probably related to the Falcon 1 roll control.
Jonesy STS - 21/3/2007 2:29 PMSeems this launch has got some of their competitors backs up?
Danderman - 21/3/2007 2:28 PMQuoteJim - 21/3/2007 11:25 AM Falcon IV doesn't need the roll control, so how are they going to spin the use of the turbopump exhaust. The F-1 used it to cool the nozzle extension. Falcon IX requires roll control for the 2nd stage, same as Falcon I.
aero313 - 21/3/2007 2:29 PMQuoteJim - 21/3/2007 2:25 PMF-1 also used RP-1 as hydraulic fluid. There were 5 of them so roll control wasn't neededTitan second stage (UDMH) and Delta IV CBC (H2) use turbopump exhaust roll control. Their propellants didn't have hydraulic fluid propertiesFalcon IV doesn't need the roll control, so how are they going to spin the use of the turbopump exhaust. The F-1 used it to cool the nozzle extension.Didn't Thor use turbine exhaust for roll control in the 1950s? I've said this before, but Falcon I isn't very different from an early Delta.
clongton - 21/3/2007 2:32 PMQuoteJonesy STS - 21/3/2007 2:29 PMSeems this launch has got some of their competitors backs up? So it would appear
Analyst - 20/3/2007 4:31 PMI don’t share the enthusiasm, the 95+% success. This has been a failure, period.
yinzer - 20/3/2007 8:29 PMEnh. Orbital tried to change the world also, and at the time people were praising them to the skies. They changed the world (more or less), found out that changing the world doesn't pay the rent, and joined the establishment. Dissapointed, the masses waited for someone else to come along looking to change the world. It's nothing personal against Orbital.
