Andy44
owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
Well, looks bad....
Rocking motion followed by feed cut = blow up in my mind.
Rocking motion followed by feed cut = blow up in my mind.
Falcon 1 Flight 3 Launch Thread
- Thread starter Andy44
- Start date
Andy44
owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
They said the word "anomaly" on the webcast. That means the vehicle is kaput.
zerofay32
Buckeye
My guess is the vehical is toast.
spcefrk
AeroEng
You would think if they RSOd the vehicle you'd get a frame or two before the video died (they weren't doing a great job of smoothly moving back and forth from various feeds so switching so gracefully is unexpected).
If they RSOd it, then they consciously switched the video off first (at least to the internet) which seems like it ought to be the last thing they should be worried about. And there was no chatter akin to "Go for Range Safety." Though it may have sounded more like "Dude blow it up already." (Maybe that's a little harsh :lol
If they RSOd it, then they consciously switched the video off first (at least to the internet) which seems like it ought to be the last thing they should be worried about. And there was no chatter akin to "Go for Range Safety." Though it may have sounded more like "Dude blow it up already." (Maybe that's a little harsh :lol
Kyle
Armchair Astronaut
Reminds me of flying the Falcon on Orbiter.
Fail.
Dang, I had my figures wrong.
Fail.
Dang, I had my figures wrong.
Andy44
owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
I'm pretty bumbed about this. I wonder how many failures they can tolerate before packing it in for good? They must be getting down to the wire.
spcefrk
AeroEng
They apparently have "Two more Falcon 1's right behind this one" http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/ which tells me they'll "Go Fever" them into launch without really understanding what happened in this launch. Moreover, If you catch three failures in three launches and you fix those three problems, you're in danger of starting a trend of chasing your own tail. You essentially spend the whole program "whack-a-moling" anomalies without coming out with a really good launch vehicle and instead one with a bunch of patchwork solutions.
My guess is whatever parameter was outside 1% of acceptable ranges was tweaked on the ground until it was inside parameters and then they launched before it could fall outside the acceptable range again -- hoping that it would stay in range throughout the flight. Whether that's the case or not, whatever quick fix they made -- they overlooked another flaw that cost them the vehicle.
Once is a fluke, Twice is bad luck, Three times is a problem.
I really can't stress enough that it looks to me like they're fighting to get a launch completed rather than trying to get a respectable launch vehicle off the ground. They're going for a launch with entirely too much risk. That's a bad frame of mind to operate in.
Just my two cents.
SlyCoopersButt
New member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2008
- Messages
- 425
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
3 strikes ='s bad reputation to say the very least. I wonder what their customers will think about launching more payloads aboard a rocket like that. They may live up to being a cost effective way but they better be able to live up on the claim of having a reliable rocket. So far that hasn't come about.
spcefrk
AeroEng
Where is that?
SlyCoopersButt
New member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2008
- Messages
- 425
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php A statement.
Andy44
owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
Oh, where did you hear this?
Zatnikitelman
Addon Developer
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 2,303
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 38
- Location
- Atlanta, GA, USA, North America
Seems I was right. Don't know if I told you guys, but I was guessing based on Tosca's Twitter comment that the 2nd stage ignited while still attached to stage 1.
Well, no drunken comments but you can have some hungover comments instead.
I was really hoping that SpaceX would get their, ahem, stuff together for this launch. I severely mocked them for their first failure, and again for their second. I decided not to pre-mock them this time as they seemed to have taken a more professional attitude to spaceflight. Seems I may have been mistaken.
(My quick mock out the way, I did have a bet that they'd fail again. Was half hoping not to win my money though)
Based on the previous launches and on what I've heard about this launch, SpaceX don't seem to have the experience to problem solve correctly. Fair enough, they're a new (ish) company but that doesn't mean that they can't hire experienced personnel, and experience is obviously what they need right now. Get a few "battle hardened" senior staff in and make a few changes. As SpaceFrk says they appears to be chasing shadows to a certain extent, solving problems only after they've stopped being problems and become a catastrophe.
Unfortunately I've now lost all confidence in SpaceX, as - I imagine - have a lot of other people. SpaceX really, really, need to get their act together or they're doing to lose all hope of finding customers willing to put their satellites inside a Falcon rocket. I've just been informed that both Astrium and the SSC have scheduled meetings next week to decide if it's wise to continue as SpaceX customers, I'm sure that's happening in many other companies too.
It'd be a shame to see SpaceX go down the pan, but they're right on the edge now. They really are.
(edit) That was surprisingly coherent for 0830 on a Sunday
Also, to those of you saying you're going to use the chatroom for future launches...please don't! It's nice for those of us who missed the launch to be able to find out what you guys said "live" about it. Don't think that's possible if you all use the chatroom.
-----Double Post Auto-Merged 3/8/2008 at 01 : 31 : 50-----
Just read an article on the launch. Did they abort post-ignition?
If they did, why the (bleep) did they still launch? If you abort that close to launch then it's for a serious problem. With a serious problem you do not just wait half an hour then try again. You go to the vehicle and you inspect the crap out of it. You delay the launch until at least the next day. Absolutely unbelievable. Incredible.
And as SpaceFrk also diagnosed, looks like they have a severe case of the Go Fevers.
I was really hoping that SpaceX would get their, ahem, stuff together for this launch. I severely mocked them for their first failure, and again for their second. I decided not to pre-mock them this time as they seemed to have taken a more professional attitude to spaceflight. Seems I may have been mistaken.
(My quick mock out the way, I did have a bet that they'd fail again. Was half hoping not to win my money though)
Based on the previous launches and on what I've heard about this launch, SpaceX don't seem to have the experience to problem solve correctly. Fair enough, they're a new (ish) company but that doesn't mean that they can't hire experienced personnel, and experience is obviously what they need right now. Get a few "battle hardened" senior staff in and make a few changes. As SpaceFrk says they appears to be chasing shadows to a certain extent, solving problems only after they've stopped being problems and become a catastrophe.
Unfortunately I've now lost all confidence in SpaceX, as - I imagine - have a lot of other people. SpaceX really, really, need to get their act together or they're doing to lose all hope of finding customers willing to put their satellites inside a Falcon rocket. I've just been informed that both Astrium and the SSC have scheduled meetings next week to decide if it's wise to continue as SpaceX customers, I'm sure that's happening in many other companies too.
It'd be a shame to see SpaceX go down the pan, but they're right on the edge now. They really are.
(edit) That was surprisingly coherent for 0830 on a Sunday
Also, to those of you saying you're going to use the chatroom for future launches...please don't! It's nice for those of us who missed the launch to be able to find out what you guys said "live" about it. Don't think that's possible if you all use the chatroom.
-----Double Post Auto-Merged 3/8/2008 at 01 : 31 : 50-----
Just read an article on the launch. Did they abort post-ignition?
If they did, why the (bleep) did they still launch? If you abort that close to launch then it's for a serious problem. With a serious problem you do not just wait half an hour then try again. You go to the vehicle and you inspect the crap out of it. You delay the launch until at least the next day. Absolutely unbelievable. Incredible.
And as SpaceFrk also diagnosed, looks like they have a severe case of the Go Fevers.
tl8
Addon Developer
Simonpro
I can confidently say that everything that was said in the chat room is said in the forum.
The lack of information is due to the lack of information being provided to us.
The chat room kept the thread very clean and provided an instantaneous view of the action.
Quick_Nick
Passed the Turing Test
However the chatroom seemed fairly messy with overlapping messages and all. I'm thinking we should completely stick to the forum for all parts of a mission in the future. It's not so bad after the mission, but using the chatroom before and during a mission just doesn't look like a good idea.
When the clock first reached zero(well, ignition time anyways), the engine ignited for just a second before it shut down and an abort was announced because, as previously mentioned, a single parameter was slightly out of limits. They seemed to make no attempt at inspecting the spacecraft and had a successful liftoff when they reignited the engine not long after. While the spacecraft was ascending(I'm not sure how long it lasted, maybe a couple of minutes), it did seem to oscillate a little. I'm not sure if this was more than expected, but it certainly looked like it. After some time on ascent, the webcast cut off and an anomaly was announced.
EDIT: spaceflightnow.com has the 'full' story: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon/003/
Elon says it was indeed a failure to seperate.
Similar threads
