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

[petec]

Frame-by-frame examination of the stage separation event indicates that the second-stage nozzle wall may have buckled somewhat from contact with the interstage wall.

Look at the top of the nozzle, near the left edge of the frame. Starting at T= 2:52, frame 7 (of the youtube download) buckling appears to begin. The buckling gets larger in frames 8 and 9. Then at frame 10, when the nozzle clears the interstage, the buckling is gone.

It could also be debris, frost, lighting or something else, but it sure looks like buckling to me.

If it is buckling, then perhaps a ground test could determine how much pressure on the nozzle lip would cause similar buckling. This may be a way to determine the impact force,  to verify what hopefully was measured by other onboard sensors.

The bigger question is: Did the buckling affect the nozzle such that it contributed to the gradual loss of control of the vehicle?

[Rob in KC]

I'm interested in the word "success". Is it normal for a failure to make orbit to be called a "success"?

[Chris Bergin]

They were pretty clear on the media call, before the launch, that simply getting to space was their objective. Anything else was a bonus.

[halkey]

Has there been any word yet regarding the recovery of the first stage?  I wonder about the cost effectiveness of re-using that stage.  It seems that the cost of recovering it, inspecting it, rebuilding the engine or attaching a new one, etc, etc, that it might not be much more cost effective then just using a new stage and would reduce the reliability of the rocket.  I wish we had some figures on how much it costs to rebuild the first stage as opposed to refurbishing it.

[brt]

If, as it is in this case:

    1. The flight is defined as a "test and demo" flight, and
    2. Reaching orbit is not defined in the test plan as a high priority goal, and
    3. 90% of the actual high priority goals in the test plan are tested and come out positive,

then yes, this would be a "success" by any reasonable, non-snarky, non-green-with-envy definition  :cool:

[Speedracer]

I couldn't see if it was brought up, but around the T+ 3:07 mark, the ring around the base of the 2nd stage engine starts to warp, then at 3:12 breaks from the base of the engine completely.  

Was this considered an issue?

Also, I noticed no flange rings around the engine.  Wouldn't they have helped evenly distribute heat to the skin of the motor?  It did look like a stove top towards end of transmission.

[edkyle99]

Rob in KC - 21/3/2007  9:26 PM

I'm interested in the word "success". Is it normal for a failure to make orbit to be called a "success"?

From a launch vehicle perspective, the answer is no.  Launch vehicles either succeed or fail.  From a mission standpoint, it can be possible - during a development flight only - to achieve some mission objectives despite suffering a launch vehicle failure and failing to achieve orbit.  

There was so much cheering when the Falcon 1-2 staging occurred that I have to wonder if that wasn't a key milestone that triggered some monetary flows as part of the DARPA contract.  It almost sounded like the champagne began flowing when that event occurred, though only 3/10ths of the way into ascent.

 - Ed Kyle

[josh_simonson]

I've heard similar cheering on EELV launches during separation and SRB or fairing jettison.  I don't think I've heard a single PSI so roundly cussed out before though...   :laugh:

Jim - 21/3/2007  7:55 PM  Rapid deployment?  Hah!!.  The vehicle has been at the launch site for months.

Its the start of testing, and they're upgrading, redesigning and simulating the vehicle across thousands of miles, and you want to count this against deployment time? Don't know of any development program I've heard of that guarantees to kill problems to keep to a readyness time budget. Even ICBM development didn't meet that requirement.

Lets see the time between launches. I'm betting they'll fly inside of three months, then following inside of a month.

Do you think that with an similar incident, a Delta 2 could pass that? You could probably consume twice the total resources of Space-X from start to date in doing that, and not get it done in twice the time.

Also it is easy to recycle when you have no spacecraft customer on top.  Worst it will ever be?  wanna bet?

Depends on how ugly the spacecraft systems are, how poor the integration process with launch facilities, and how ineffective the preflight validation and verification. Most of this depends on the skills and experience of launch operations customer support services. So you think they're two-bit, and haven't gotten to the point of having serious personnel  trained and in place. E.g. not a business, just playing at it. A long learning curve.

Actually, integration is the area where automation is required for rapid deployment - once you've removed the obstacles of the LV. You can't have anything that holds up processing.

Hard to imagine going to all the trouble of building a LV and then not having the sense to finish the job so it can be used. I can't imagine such stupidity, except out of politicians where there is no limit.

[Comga]

Speedracer - 21/3/2007  10:16 PM
.... around the T+ 3:07 mark, the ring around the base of the 2nd stage engine starts to warp, then at 3:12 breaks from the base of the engine completely.  

Was this considered an issue?

Once again, these are reinforcement rings (Titanium IIRC) that are bonded on.  They are supposed to fall away.  
(Can't recall where in all the forums I read that, but it was from SpaceX.)

[Comga]

Danderman - 21/3/2007  3:49 PM.... I would not be surprised is 3 out of the first 5 Falcon I launches are failures, but down the road, it won't matter. Falcon I is a test vehicle, that can generate some small amounts of revenue. Falcon IX is the big  money maker, if it works, providing Delta II lift at a fraction of the cost.  I would not spend much time worrying about if Elon is making money at this point.

IF Falcon I never works, Elon will go out of business. If he can get it to fly, then he has a chance of making a go of it with Falcon IX. Everything else is speculation.

I agree wholeheartedly.   He will never recoup his $100M investment in "profit" from $6M launches.  He is going for the Falcon 9.  Whether he can make those work is still undetermined, but he is a lot closer with yesterday's test.  The remaining problems are many fewer than before this launch, and a lot fewer and simpler than at this time last year.    

What's left? Improved stage separation (although it is not clear that the bumping caused any problem.  The second stage regained attitude very quickly) which could be done by separating at two planes (like the famous footage of the falling interstage from the Saturn V.) or just better controls on rates.  Improvements to the second stage control laws.  Then they have to prove restarts and injection accuracy.  Sounds reasonable for the next launch, which Musk indicated could still be this summer (although I would bet on the Q4)

[Analyst]

vda - 21/3/2007  8:42 PM

Analyst - 20/3/2007  4:31 PM
I don’t share the enthusiasm, the 95+% success. This has been a failure, period.

I don't understant the purpose of this idiotic discussion "how many percents of success it was?". We all know what exactly worked, and what didn't. It cannot be quantified in percents.

If someone claims to be 95+% successful and was clearly not, we should have this idiotic discussion.

Analyst

[hektor]

I haven't seen any news about Stage 1 retrieval ? should i assume that this has not been successful ?

[vda]

Analyst - 21/3/2007  10:22 AM

vda - 21/3/2007  8:42 PM

Analyst - 20/3/2007  4:31 PM
I don’t share the enthusiasm, the 95+% success. This has been a failure, period.

I don't understant the purpose of this idiotic discussion "how many percents of success it was?". We all know what exactly worked, and what didn't. It cannot be quantified in percents.

If someone claims to be 95+% successful and was clearly not, we should have this idiotic discussion.

It depends on what was considered to be a 100% percent success. Since that number was not unambiguously announced before the launch, Musk and you and anybody else can twist percents now in any way you want.

But how is this actually _useful_? We can kill days of our time and finally arrive to a consensus that it was 46.126375128364% suceessful. Will that be of any help? I think not.

Do you have any useful technological, managerial, or business suggestions to Musk or space enthusiast community as a whole, apart from "percent munging"?

[SimonShuttle]

hektor - 22/3/2007  5:36 AM

I haven't seen any news about Stage 1 retrieval ? should i assume that this has not been successful ?

It was 89 percent successful

[Analyst]

vda - 22/3/2007  12:46 PM

Analyst - 21/3/2007  10:22 AM

vda - 21/3/2007  8:42 PM

Analyst - 20/3/2007  4:31 PM
I don’t share the enthusiasm, the 95+% success. This has been a failure, period.

I don't understant the purpose of this idiotic discussion "how many percents of success it was?". We all know what exactly worked, and what didn't. It cannot be quantified in percents.

If someone claims to be 95+% successful and was clearly not, we should have this idiotic discussion.

It depends on what was considered to be a 100% percent success. Since that number was not unambiguously announced before the launch, Musk and you and anybody else can twist percents now in any way you want.

But how is this actually _useful_? We can kill days of our time and finally arrive to a consensus that it was 46.126375128364% suceessful. Will that be of any help? I think not.

Do you have any useful technological, managerial, or business suggestions to Musk or space enthusiast community as a whole, apart from "percent munging"?

Please keep a civil tongue.

Suggestions: Less talk about others (LM, Boeing, the government etc.), less spin, work harder.

Analyst

[Satori]

Does anyone has the launch time in the format 0110:XX.XXXUTC?

Thanks!

[Chris Bergin]

hektor - 22/3/2007  10:36 AM

I haven't seen any news about Stage 1 retrieval ? should i assume that this has not been successful ?

Braddock asked them yesterday, so he'll post news when it's forthcoming.

[Chris Bergin]

edkyle99 - 22/3/2007  4:28 AM

Rob in KC - 21/3/2007  9:26 PM

I'm interested in the word "success". Is it normal for a failure to make orbit to be called a "success"?

From a launch vehicle perspective, the answer is no.  Launch vehicles either succeed or fail.  From a mission standpoint, it can be possible - during a development flight only - to achieve some mission objectives despite suffering a launch vehicle failure and failing to achieve orbit.  

There was so much cheering when the Falcon 1-2 staging occurred that I have to wonder if that wasn't a key milestone that triggered some monetary flows as part of the DARPA contract.  It almost sounded like the champagne began flowing when that event occurred, though only 3/10ths of the way into ascent.

 - Ed Kyle

There certainly was cheering at 1-2 staging, in the style we usually observe at spacecraft seperation on other missions. This would back up SpaceX's claim that their test objective was to get into space - and as I noted they made that point before the launch - thus it was a success, with anything else being a bonus.

The bonus part appears to have suffered from the sloshing of the propellants and/or POGO (assumption), but they are easy fixes - according to engineers I've spoken to.

[BarryKirk]

My hats off to SpaceX and congradulations.

This will certainly change the tenor of the arguments about don't talk about the Falcon 9 until the Falcon 1 lifts off.  It won't stop those arguments since the Falcon 1 didn't achieve orbit or reach all of it's bonus goals, but at least they have proven that they are on a path that can lead to achieving that goal.