Falcon 1 Launch: December 19 at 11 a.m. PST (7 p.m. GMT)

[spacefire]

bummer. they prolly made the structure too light in order to increase the payload and now they're paying for it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[cretan126]

How do you have a structural failure in a 'responsive' rocket when it is just sitting on the pad in a 'strong breeze' (http://www.friesian.com/wind.htm)? It seems that doesn't bode well for how it will hold up during the much greater stresses of launch.

 

[mikkelrj]

Lets wait for an official statement on the launch scrub before commenting on what the cause might have been.

 

[grooble]

5 weeks max i reckon.

 

[spacester]

Going way out on a limb here . . . .<br /><br />My best guess is they found one or more strain gages out of allowable range. The real-world loads on the fuel tank structure were not quite as symmetrical as expected, or something like that, some sort of barely-out-of-spec instrument reading. The high winds could very well be involved. Maybe the higher-than-flight-permissible winds were not used correctly when doing the sitting-on-the-pad stress analysis.<br /><br />Corrective action may be as simple as welding in another ring to distribute the load more uniformly.<br /><br />Going WAY out on a limb, but it's fun to take a stab at these things . . . <br /><br />It's good to see that they are committed to green lights across the board. No launch fever detected here.<br /><br />Another month then . . . I can live with that. ;-) <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Even though such delays are difficult for some people here who support these efforts very strongly, I personally believe that Elon Musk is showing the right attitude here. In the early years of rocketry it was generally the military that was develping these systems, and they had relatively unlimited funidng in which to make mistakes. If you have ever seen the movie "The Right Stuff" you must remember all of those spectacular explosions of early rocket developement!<br /><br />None of these pure private start up companies can even come close to that kind of failure rate here! Not only would this be very damaging to the reputations of such companies, but just as importantly it would immediately cut very heavily into any kind of profit such companies hope to generate (of course, too much delay could also have a bad affect on such profits, but not as much as out and out failure of the rockets themselves). <br /><br />I will admit however, that if there are these many problems getting such a relatively small rocket off the ground, then perhaps it is somewhat premature to be talking about the size of rockets similer to the EELV's!!<br /><br />I would guess that Boeing, LM, Northrupp and other such established companies might just not have as much to worry abput as some on these boards would think they do!!<br /><br />It IS NOT an easy thing to launch such rockets into space, under the best of circumstances!!<br /><br />Please don't misunderstand me here, I am all for more companies getting into this business, and wish all very good luck in doing so. It is just that I think a little more patience and reality from some on these boards would be worthwhile, and a little less antagonism against those established companies that have actually been able to do these things would also be more helpful!

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">Also note that they never said structural failure...<br /><br /><font color="white">Sorry my fault, I was just (mis)reporting what what being said elsewhere.</font></font>

 

[mlorrey]

an uncommanded roll is just a poor man's passive guidance system... as anyone who's thrown a hail mary pass knows....

 

[mikejz]

Guess we'll see if third time is the charm. In a related matter, if this delay does not push back the launch from Vandyland, then we could see 2 SpaceX launches within weeks of each other.

 

[yurkin]

If it is only slightly out of tolerance I suspect the fix is to run the stress analysis a few more times and then adjust the goal posts so that it’s back in spec. <br />If something has to be physically changed on the rockets structure then I think its going to be tough to meet a five week deadline. Unless someone can come up with a real clever fix.<br /><br />Shame though it didn’t launch today, but I guess it could have been worse.<br />

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow"><i>".... Going way out on a limb here . . . . <br /><br />My best guess is they found one or more strain gages out of allowable range. The real-world loads on the fuel tank structure were not quite as symmetrical as expected, or something like that, some sort of barely-out-of-spec instrument reading. The high winds could very well be involved. Maybe the higher-than-flight-permissible winds were not used correctly when doing the sitting-on-the-pad stress analysis. <br /><br />Corrective action may be as simple as welding in another ring to distribute the load more uniformly. <br /><br />Going WAY out on a limb, but it's fun to take a stab at these things . . . </i></font><br /><br /><br />How many limbs do you have to go out on? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />The key word on SpaceX's statement is "a structural issue with the 1st stage fuel tank that will require repair....". <br /><br />Repair implies it has been damaged somehow.<br /><br />Since the Falcon's fuel tank is not insulated, any "structural issues that requires repair" could range from surface indentation to a leak. Either way, it's not a minor issue as it is not a cosmetic fix and any "repair" must also satisfies the Range Safety review and subsequent approval which is pretty rigorous by itself.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">Also note that they never said structural failure, they said a structural issue. (Hopefully this is not a PR spin to a structural failure. That is not like Rutan telling eveyone that Spaceship One was never out of control.... I say when you have a uncommanded roll that you can not stop you are out of control) </font><br /><br />Intro to aerospace PR lingo:<br /><br />"Problem" = "Issue"<br /><br />"Failure" = "Anomally"<br /><br />"Accident" = "Incident"<br /><br />So since this is called an "issue" at this time, most likely there's a big enough "problem" that's stopping it from launch, but not yet becoming a "failure". A failure during launch, but does not involve explosion, would be a "flight anomally". However; a complete explosion of the rocket would be an "incident". <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">...I will admit however, that if there are these many problems getting such a relatively small rocket off the ground, then perhaps it is somewhat premature to be talking about the size of rockets similer to the EELV's!! <br /><br />I would guess that Boeing, LM, Northrupp and other such established companies might just not have as much to worry abput as some on these boards would think they do!! <br /><br />It IS NOT an easy thing to launch such rockets into space, under the best of circumstances!! ...</font><br /><br /><br />Smaller rocket does not necessary mean it's <i>less complex </i>for launch. A simpler launch vehicle is usually easier to launch with greater reliability. For example, Delta II vs. Atlas II.<br /><br />Launch delays and scrubs are fairly common, especially for the first launch. I would not project the company's future based on its launch delays.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Hehehe I'm not sure the second limb was such a good idea, I'll retreat from the easy welding job part at least. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Yeah, the word 'repair' does imply 'damage', but I got out on the limb by thinking it might actually mean 'rework' in the sense that 'the design needs repair'. Reading between the lines overmuch perhaps, we'll see. Tweaking the design might be just as said, by moving the goalposts, so the 'repair' would be matching the FEA model with the observed response and making sure you understand what's going on.<br /><br />A distortion or a leak makes sense, you're closer to the tree trunk most likely. If a distortion, we might both be right. If a leak, I was way off. But these tanks were previously pressurized and proofed, right?<br /><br />Hmmm I'll stay out on the first limb . . . . the tank wall defected too much which set off the strain gages. Perhaps even plastic deformation, resulting in out-of spec geometry requiring repair.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

From NSF<br /><br /><font color="yellow">New Update from Elon Musk on cause of abort:<br /><br />"Posted December 19, 2005 at 4:40 p.m. California time: Here is the apparent cause of structural damage (further analysis may change the conclusion):<br /><br />Due to high winds, we placed the countdown on hold and began draining the fuel tank. As we drained fuel from the 1st stage tank, a faulty pressurization valve caused a vacuum condition in the tank. This caused a fuel tank barrel section to deform and suck slightly inward. It is important to note that the root cause is an electrical fault with a valve, not structural design.<br /><br />At this point, it appears that no other damage was sustained to the vehicle or the satellite. The rocket will be lowered down this afternoon and placed in its hangar for further inspection.<br />--- Elon ---"</font>

 

[subzero788]

Well I guess thats good news right? At least its not a structual design "issue"<br />

 

[jamie_young]

""Thanx for link!""<br /><br />You are welcome.

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">..... As we drained fuel from the 1st stage tank, a faulty pressurization valve caused a vacuum condition in the tank. This caused a fuel tank barrel section to deform and suck slightly inward....</font><br /><br />Good Lord !! The tank wall <i>buckled</i> !!! <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /><br /><br />This is a lot bigger "issue" than can be resolved by analysis. "Buckled" as in plastic deformation on a primary structure that carries the thrust load of rocket??? This is as serious as TPS damage on the Shuttle Orbiter !!<br /><br />Now extensive inspection and analysis need to be performed to see if they can 1) launch as is, or 2) any repair/ rework that can be performed and does not require taking the tank off the vehicle, or 3) need a new tank. <br /><br />A propellant tank is usually designed to withstand X number of pressure cycle but NEVER buckled !!! <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dragon04]

I think Elon should stick to Ebay personally. They have this big production about their marvelous HLV's and can't even launch a bottle rocket. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[mikejz]

Elon never did ebay, he just figured how to get 1.9% of every dollar sold on ebay <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[dragon04]

I'll stick my neck out and say that their next launch will also be scrubbed.<br /><br />Space isn't easy. And I honestly hope that SpaceX can come though. I just have a problem with them touting Falcon 9 when they can't even put Falcon 1 in space.<br /><br />The Earth-to-orbit business isn't dot com. Show results first, and THEN promote the next good thing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"Good Lord !! The tank wall buckled !!!"</font><br /><br />I think the problem is not the structure of the tank, but that <i>"a faulty pressurization valve caused a vacuum condition in the tank"</i>. The tank should not need to be designed to withstand pressure from within AND from without. Rather the valves should work so that there never is a situation where there is pressure from without. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rybanis]

Without redundant valves, makes me hope those engines shut down clean, every single time. <br /><br />What would happen if you had a turbopump creating a vacum on the tank before booster seperation? LOV? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

I was NOT being negative for the sake of being negative, but a little caution here is somewhat useful. Yes even a small rocket can be complex, but when you get up to the size of rocckets at the level of even the normal EELV's (let alone the EELV Heavies) even just the launch pads and handling equipment get far larger and therefore far more expensive, even if not more complex!!<br /><br />So what spacex needs to do now is not only fix the problem with the Falcon I, and then get a good launch off, but also continue to get at least a dozen such launches to prove that they can continue to launch reliably, and perhaps even start to make a small profit.<br /><br />This should be done before larger rockets are even talked about. as I said in my earlier post! To build and launch even rockets of the size of the delta II and Atlas IIA will require a great deal more funding, and therefore spacex has to prove to additional investors that it has a reliable system! <br /><br />My main complaint here is the large amount of animosity that some want to show to the more established companies such as Boeing. In the case of at least Boeing the rocket launch business isn't even a large part of their operations (so Boeing IS NOT going to go broke because of the actions of spacex!!). Heck, they just sold Rocketdyne to Pratt and Whitney! By far and away Boeing's major business is the commercial aircraft division, and after that comes the military aircraft and munitions business, much farther down the line is the civilian rocket launch section. I really think that they are far less worried about spacex than some of the more antagonistic members of this site think!!<br /><br />Perhaps it would do some like orrery21 some good (as he is always spouting off in a negative fashion about ISS taking away good American Aerospace jobs) that Boeing alone accounts for some 150,000 or so of those very jobs!! I don't know the exact number of such jobs left in Boeings civilian launch business (Delta II, D

 

[henryhallam]

<font color="yellow">What would happen if you had a turbopump creating a vacuum on the tank before booster seperation? LOV?</font><br /><br />I would have thought by that first stage sep the vehicle would be high enough, 200 000 ft or so, that there would pretty much be a vacuum outside anyway. No pressure differential, no problem.