New SpaceX Falcon I videos...

[tmccort]

I haven't seen it mentioned here yet but SpaceX posted some videos and pictures of the launch here:<br /><br />http://www.spacex.com/updates.php<br /><br />Nice video and pictures, but don't expect to see anything about the crash.<br /><br />"As SpaceX is a company that believes in maximum disclosure (within the boundaries of proprietary data and ITAR restrictions), I will try to post as much as possible about this launch attempt over the coming weeks.<br /> <br />---Elon"<br /><br />Whoops.

 

[llivinglarge]

Maximum disclosure my ass...

 

[comga]

Do you have any technical interest in seeing the unpowered rocket descend? (Of course it would be cool, but....) Is there anything else you want but have not gotten? Are you a paying customer in need of information? <br /><br />Remember that providing diagnostics for failed rocket launches is how Hughes brought us ITAR. Have you ever dealt with ITAR regulations?<br /><br />Please minimize the grousing. Go over to http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=474917&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=1#Post475468<br />and join us in thanking them for the extensive information they have provided.

 

[brandbll]

Rockets are good for two things: Flying, and Blowing Up. This one sucked at flying, so they might as well let us see its secondary function. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[comga]

Three recent articles. Newsweek finally noticed SpaceX. In twenty words they made at least three errors, not the least of which was putting the Falcon 1 launch under the heading of "Space Tourism". <br /><br />On the positive side, the April 3 edition of Aviation Week has a full two page article on the launch, titled "First 30 Sec. Good..." It is a classic Av Week article . There is even an enlargement of one of the photos from just after liftoff. with more clarity than I have seen. It shows that the fire started before the rocket is half-way past the cradle. Indeed, the text says it started before the launch clamps were released. It appears that the fire is inside some blankets attached to the thrust frame, and that the leaking presurized fuel contributed to the rolling. They have a great image of the engine from a few years back for context. There are no pictures of the wreckage, but I don't blame SpaceX for not being THAT forthcoming. Lots of quotes that I have not read to date.<br /><br />The last is possibly the best. The top half of the Av Week back page is an editorial titled "Two cheers for the new rocketeers". It sums up what many of us "fans" have felt for years: this was never going to be easy, it is harder than many thought even when being "realistic", but there is a lot riding on the success of SpaceX, and we have good reason to believe that they will succeed to a good degree, at least technically. <br /><br />We just have to wait for the official report to see which wild guess was closest to the true failure mechanism.

 

[comga]

"Rockets are good for two things: Flying, and Blowing Up. "<br /><br />PS As you know, it didn't blow up at all. It came down relatively intact, it appears. It would have been much less exciting than some of the great fireballs of history, but much more informative when you have big pieces to examine.

 

[mlorrey]

I didn't know that. I'm rather surprised it didn't blow up on impact.

 

[edkyle98]

"As you know, it didn't blow up at all. It came down relatively intact, it appears. It would have been much less <br />exciting than some of the great fireballs of history, but <br />much more informative when you have big pieces to <br />examine."<br /><br />The report that the payload landing on the island hints <br />that the rocket broke up somewhat. The payload <br />fairing probably ripped off at least. I suspect that <br />the thing made a rather nice fireball when it impacted <br />the ocean and probably cracked open like an eggshell. <br /> Maybe not an explosion, but a conflagration. <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[baktothemoon]

Hey, if the fire had happened on the Falcon V could that engine have been shut down, putting out the fire? I'm asking because I was wondering if the rocket could have still worked with a multi-engine rocket.<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

 

[mlorrey]

Depends on where the leaking fitting was. Sounds to me like enough had leaked onto the equipment to keep burning even if the engine had been shut down, especially given the open ventilation of being on the leeward end of the launcher.

 

[comga]

"the roll got out of control when the engine shut down due to the fire. This is because there was no roll control with the engine shutdwon."<br /><br />I am not sure. There was another statement that the burning, pressurized fuel was generating about 50-foot-lbs of roll torque before the engine shut down. I a perverse way this was sort of like the turbopump exhaust roll control gone to the dark side. <br /><br />From another statement by Musk, it seems that a connector was undone after avionics work. There are two possibilities. It could be in the fuel system. However, the fuel line is a large element, and if it was disconnected, there wouldn't be a leak but a real fireball.<br /><br />Another is in the hydraulic controls, although I don't know what is being controlled. (I thought that the engine steering was purely electromechanical, but that could be in error.) I believe that the Falcon uses pressurized fuel for this function. Leaking hydraulic fuel s is a more likely possibility in that Musk says that the telemetry in review shows the leak four seconds before lift-off. My guess would be that this is when the hydraulics are pressurized, or at least the pressure is allowed to flow to the actuators. <br /><br />This goes against what backtothemoon said. If a "hydraulic" fuel line disconnected on the Falcon 5 or 9, it would spew fuel around the engines that were still lit, causing a similar disaster, like mlorrey said.<br /><br />And there has been no report of the rocket exploding on impact. There are statements about parts like the aft fuel tank dome surviving relatively intact. Recall that if the engine shuts off around 30 seconds, and the fuel shuts off, the engines stop as it continues to coast up for probably another ten seconds, and decends for 18 seconds. (I did a crude estimate that the rocket got to about 1.02 miles. ) There may have been no flames by the time it hit, and it reportedly did hit the water on "a dead reef".<br /><br />Kimbal Musk (in kwajro

 

[comga]

To be honest, I an not 100% sure of the 4 seconds vs 4 minutes. I better try and find the source. <br /><br />My error. <br /><br />"The Falcon 1 rocket was leaking fuel four minutes prior to liftoff, ..."<br /><br />from, among others http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12189001/from/RL.3/