Flight 4 of Falcon 1

[simonpro]

Hmm...they'll be adding unflown stuff to a rocket with an already shaky history. I don't know, frankly I'd say to heck with recovery, you've got a system that works, don't screw with it for now.

Exactly, that's the most positive thing to come out of this launch. SpaceX have finally realised they need to take things carefully and not rush around changing everything just because they want to.
It's a much more mature attitude they have now, and that probably goes a long way to explaining why this Falcon ended up in orbit instead of in flames.

 

[JamesG]

but the opportunity cost was too great.

Heh, probably the insurance costs were too great.

Both occurred at sub-orbital velocities so there is no issue.

Yeah but you don't know what went flying off laterally or once it was at apex.

Its a good job, but they need to refine it.

 

[simonpro]

Heh, probably the insurance costs were too great.

In almost all cases (including previous spaceX launches) insurance is paid for by the customer, not the launch provider.

Yeah but you don't know what went flying off laterally or once it was at apex.

Its a good job, but they need to refine it.

Flying off laterally won't give it enough velocity to maintain orbit, and nothing flew off at SECO.

 

[JamesG]

In almost all cases (including previous spaceX launches) insurance is paid for by the customer, not the launch provider.

And that matters how in the decision/availabilty to launch a "live" payload with this particular rocket?

Flying off laterally won't give it enough velocity to maintain orbit, and nothing flew off at SECO.

Look again, you can see insulation and stuff come off while the engine is stuttering and when it shuts off.

 

[n122vu]

If you download the A.R.T. (Apophis Rendezvous and Tagging) addon, it includes the Omelek launch site which you can use with the Falcon 1.1.4 linked by eveningsky339. You can get it here:

http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=3470

Didn't realize es339 had linked to the SpaceX launchers not Falcon 1.1.4 (Didn't know the SpaceX launchers addon even existed - thanks for the link!)

With brianj's and glider's permission, would anyone be interested in me creating scenario files with the SpaceX launchers using the Omelek atoll? Would require installation of the A.R.T. addon above.

 

[Skookum]

Elon is Glowing

 

[simonpro]

And that matters how in the decision/availabilty to launch a "live" payload with this particular rocket?

It does if you're the customer, yes.

Look again, you can see insulation and stuff come off while the engine is stuttering and when it shuts off.

That happens on pretty much every launch vehicle. SpaceX are no better or worse than anyone else.
Not saying that's a good thing, mind you. Just that it's not bad in comparison to others.

 

[JamesG]

It does if you're the customer, yes.

Not really. You either pay to insure that your payload reaches its intended, useful orbit directly, or indirectly thru the increased fees for the launch service provider to ah... provide it.

The Launch provider already has to carry casualty insurance that the rocket won't explode on the pad, demolish the support facilities, or the one in several million chance that a discarded part won't land on a ship somewhere downrange. It would probably be more efficent for everything to be rolled into one insurance paper from the launch operator, but its more beneficial to the insurance companies to have multiple, semi-overlapping (more premiums!).

The owners directly insuring their payload came about because it was usually a governmental agency (to varying shades) that provided the launch services and they did not carry literal insurance, they just paid off, or blew off, anyone who had a claim. The probablility of loss, for whatever reason, of the payload was built into the calculation.

Now a days, if you have a rocket fail with a big ticket satillite aboard. The owner's insurance company is going to go over the commercial launch providers's operation and technical preparation with a fine toothed comb looking for any fault for an excuse to sue to recoup some of thier payout.

 

[GregBurch]

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/

Congratulations to SpaceX​

"On behalf of myself and all of us at Bigelow Aerospace, I would like to congratulate Elon Musk and the entire SpaceX team on the successful launch of the Falcon 1. There is no field more relentlessly unforgiving than rocketry and to achieve success as quickly as SpaceX has is truly a momentous accomplishment. With our own Genesis I and II currently in orbit, the suborbital flights of Scaled Composite's SpaceShipOne, and now the successful launch of Falcon 1, we are clearly seeing the dawn of a new era. SpaceX's singular achievement has brought us closer to realizing the shared vision of a robust, private sector driven space marketplace whose fruits all of humanity can enjoy. This launch may have been one small step for SpaceX, but it's a giant leap for the entrepreneurial space industry."

- Robert T. Bigelow

 

[simonpro]

Not really. You either pay to insure that your payload
...snip...
looking for any fault for an excuse to sue to recoup some of thier payout.

Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make. The additional time spent preparing the launch vehicle for a payload flight was not worth it. There would be no direct increase in insurance cost to SpaceX for flying a payload, but the extra work they'd do would increase somewhat as they'd have to come up with separation systems, payload reviews, structural reviews...
None of which can be done, and all of which are needed to:
a) Satisfy the insurer that the satellite is capable of withstanding a Falcon-1 launch and
b) Satisfy SpaceX that the satellite will not harm vehicle performance.

 

[JamesG]

Well sure. Thats why it didn't have a paying payload on top. They have to prove that they can reach orbit safely before they are going to get underwriters to sign off on it at all, much less when its been proofed.

I still think that they could have built a payload that could reenter. It would have been cool, and not that expensive, relatively speaking. All the hardware should be designed already and will need to be built and tested. But maybe funds were getting thin or they blew it up on one of the other attempts...

 

[Ghostrider]

I would have put in a HE payload, just to get not only the first private LV into orbit, but the first orbital fireworks as well. But that's just me...

 

[thomasantony]

And that matters how in the decision/availabilty to launch a "live" payload with this particular rocket?



Look again, you can see insulation and stuff come off while the engine is stuttering and when it shuts off.

The Kestrel engine has an ablatively cooled chamber? So isn't it supposed to give off stuff?

~
Thomas

 

[Urwumpe]

The Kestrel engine has an ablatively cooled chamber? So isn't it supposed to give off stuff?

~
Thomas

I think it has only an ablative throat, but a film cooled chamber. Don't know exactly, SpaceX does not publish many facts about the engines.

 

[thomasantony]

I think it has only an ablative throat, but a film cooled chamber. Don't know exactly, SpaceX does not publish many facts about the engines.

During the video, after stage sep, there WAS a lot of crud falling past and sometimes sticking to the on-board camera. I assumed it was part of whatever was ablating away.

~
THomas

 

[Eagle]

During the video, after stage sep, there WAS a lot of crud falling past and sometimes sticking to the on-board camera. I assumed it was part of whatever was ablating away.

~
THomas

That was ice.

 

[tblaxland]

Flight 4 video set to music. Also shows circularisation burn:

 

[Andy44]

SOmebody stole my idea for using Crystal Method's High Roller as my favorite Orbiter launch music, I see! Great vid, tblax.

 

[tblaxland]

Great vid, tblax.

Err... it's not my video. If you follow the Youtube link, you will see that it was posted by Kimbal Musk. According to his blog, it was produced by someone at SpaceX. I guess I should give credits when posting Youtube content in the future...

 

[MajorTom]

Didn't realize es339 had linked to the SpaceX launchers not Falcon 1.1.4 (Didn't know the SpaceX launchers addon even existed - thanks for the link!)

With brianj's and glider's permission, would anyone be interested in me creating scenario files with the SpaceX launchers using the Omelek atoll? Would require installation of the A.R.T. addon above.

Good idea...I started something similar for my own use. To make a scenario that's worth it, you ought to create a "Ratsat" payload (aluminum hexagonal payload mass simulator, actually) and also a guidance file for use with multistage2. Then, together with Glider's Falcon 1 and Brian's Omelek (really cool, both of them) you'd have something substantial.