Falcon 1 Flight 3 Launch Thread

[DaveS]

Latest report on Flight 3: http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon/003/update.html

Keep an eye out for the full launch video as it will be released later tonight according to the story.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

I was wrong. Guess Merlin WAS the culprit. Sorry guys.
If everything else did do OK, then it looks like next time will be successful. The only niggling little problem I can see is that the second stage hasn't been tested in its operational environment. Sure it fired 2nd launch, and it seems to have fired this last time, but 2nd time the guidance didn't null the sloshing (due to staging, but who knows?) and this time it didn't even get to work before the rocket experienced an "Unanticipated Dissassembly."

 

[Andy44]

Very interesting. Is it rude of me to point out that they should have forseen residual thrust on the new regen engine? Probably, since they are probably smarter than I am. But I find it interesting that it appears the problem came from the most significant new part of the rocket.

So I take it the solution to the problem is to delay staging for another second or so in in order to wait for the Merlin to burn out. Good. But while they're at it, they need to look at the processes and environment that led them to miss this. Ask these questions: Was this predictable and testable? Could our engineering process be improved to avoid missing things like this?

After 3 failures, just fixing one problem and launching again is not enough; it's the "tail-chasing" someone else mentioned. Take a good look at the bigger picture and tighten things up a bit, do a thorough review, and thenget Flight 4 into orbit.

At least it sounds like we won't have to wait more than a month or 2 to see the next try.

 

[SlyCoopersButt]

Wow, I just saw their pricing for Falcon 1, It's remarkable! If you've got a nice small spacecraft or small satelite you can have it launched for the most reasonable price you can imagine! I never realised how upon us are the days that this would be so affordable! Falcon 1 has got to make it! The price is so low it's worth the gamble.

 

[Linguofreak]

That same problem may be responsible for both launch failures.

I'm not sure you can quite say that it's entirely an engine problem though... You could also see it as a problem with the stage seperation system not having adequate interlocks against separation when the vehicle is under acceleration. They said they'd increase the time on the staging timer, but it would make sense to actually put some interlock in to prevent staging while the engine is firing, whatever the timer is set to.

 

[tblaxland]

Very interesting. Is it rude of me to point out that they should have forseen residual thrust on the new regen engine? Probably, since they are probably smarter than I am. But I find it interesting that it appears the problem came from the most significant new part of the rocket.

I don't think it is rude at all. I am surprised that they did not have good data on the residual thrust from the 1C engine testing.

 

[spcefrk]

Wow, I just saw their pricing for Falcon 1, It's remarkable! If you've got a nice small spacecraft or small satelite you can have it launched for the most reasonable price you can imagine! I never realised how upon us are the days that this would be so affordable! Falcon 1 has got to make it! The price is so low it's worth the gamble.

I can toss a bunch of C4 into a cardboard tube and claim cheap launch services to orbit. But you and I both know it's going nowhere but into a million pieces. Why? Because you and I both know something about my C4-Space Access that not even SpaceX knows about their own vehicle -- whether or not it's likely to fail.

They definitely need to take a step back and look at their management procedures and figure out why whoever green lighted these launches in their pre-flight review is still the best person for that task. Perhaps they have a couple guys asking "Are you sure you fixed this problem?" without the followup detailed question of "Why?"

 

[Zatnikitelman]

I don't think it is rude at all. I am surprised that they did not have good data on the residual thrust from the 1C engine testing.

They didn't have good data because the chamber pressure was 10psi at that altitude. Ambient pressure on the ground is 14.7psi give or take. That means that even if the residual had happened on the ground, air from outside would ahve come into the chamber and given 0 relative pressure reading. Although computer modeling should have caught that unless this comes under one of those CFL computations that takes weeks to do.

The same problem can't be responsible for both failures. The Merlin on the 2nd flight was a 1a, this was 1c. It uses a regeneratively cooled nozzle so there is extra fuel left to burn. This brings up another point though, why isn't there a valve downstream of the regen-fuel flow?

 

[Andy44]

Why put a valve in? Just adjust for it and fly on. Adding a valve means a hardware change to a flight-certified design, which means lots of testing and is way more expensive than changing a few lines in the flight software to delay staging.

While reading that article, am I the only one who noticed that no one asked Musk whether the rocket was supposed to roll back and forth like it did during the launch, and if anything will be done about it?

 

[Lunar_Lander]

I'd still go for a rocket-assisted stage seperation. I mean, every rocket has used this since the beginning of the space age and I'm not aware of any occasion where the stage seperator had been too weak to get the stages away from each other.

 

[simonpro]

My god, talk about a schoolboy error. This is the type of thing you learn in rocket engine design 101, loads of rockets experience this problem and none of them have disintegrated because of it. Why? Because they wait more than 2.5 seconds between shutdown and staging.
They saw this could be an issue on the test stand, yet they still did nothing about it. They really, really, really need some more experienced engineers somewhere in their company.

That same problem may be responsible for both launch failures.

Nope. This one was caused by the new engine. It didn't fly on Flight-2.

Adding a valve means a hardware change to a flight-certified design, which means lots of testing and is way more expensive than changing a few lines in the flight software to delay staging.

Unfortunately, seeing as how all three failures involved software, is seems that SpaceX only do hardware testing, never software testing

(edit)

I'd still go for a rocket-assisted stage seperation. I mean, every rocket has used this since the beginning of the space age and I'm not aware of any occasion where the stage seperator had been too weak to get the stages away from each other.

Actually quite a lot of rockets use the same technique as Falcon, including the Delta II.

 

[Cobalt]

Is the video available yet?

 

[Quick_Nick]

Unfortunately, seeing as how all three failures involved software, is seems that SpaceX only do hardware testing, never software testing

I know they at least do a simulation of the flight with the software before launch. (make the software think it's flying a rocket) I would think that it would have been able to calculate some residual thrust... guess not.

 

[Thunder Chicken]

They really, really, really need some more experienced engineers somewhere in their company.

They are getting more-experienced engineers after every failure. The engineers at SpaceX are studying at the School of Hard Knocks right now.

How many engineers do you think are out on the job market with experience in designing rockets that have actually been built and left the pad? Take a look at SpaceX's career page - they are looking for good people. But anyone with the right level of experience is probably very senior at Boeing or NASA and wouldn't dare go to a start-up like SpaceX. Unless they happen to get the right resume, then they are forced to work beyond their experience level. This is not uncommon in many industries, I am afraid to say.

 

[n122vu]

Is the video available yet?

Here:

 

[DaveS]

Here:

That's the regular broadcast version. What Cobalt is talking about is the unreleased version, which shows the mishap happening. The regular version doesn't as it was broadcast with a significant delay and was cut before the mishap was shown.

 

[Kyle]

So they have another one ready to go.

 

[simonpro]

How many engineers do you think are out on the job market with experience in designing rockets that have actually been built and left the pad? Take a look at SpaceX's career page - they are looking for good people. But anyone with the right level of experience is probably very senior at Boeing or NASA and wouldn't dare go to a start-up like SpaceX. Unless they happen to get the right resume, then they are forced to work beyond their experience level. This is not uncommon in many industries, I am afraid to say.

They need someone, and they need them rather urgently. If they can't find someone willing to switch from Boeing/LM/etc then they should be looking to recently retired engineers. Ask one to come in as a "consultant" or something.
What they need is a leader, basically, and no matter what there's always some of them on the job market. I think they aren't helping themselves by disallowing all non US-citizens from applying, but I guess that's the downside of working for the government. There's plenty of experienced engineers in Europe who'd be willing to work for spacex, especially ones from the ariane programme.

 

[DaveS]

Full video is up: http://mfile.akamai.com/22165/wmv/spacex.download.akamai.com/22165/F1-003.asx

 

[Cobalt]

Full video is up: http://mfile.akamai.com/22165/wmv/spacex.download.akamai.com/22165/F1-003.asx

I for the life of me cannot get that to play in any player I have installed.