didn't Elon once say that 3 was the magic number, in which case this has been the make-or-break flight? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
- Status
didn't Elon once say that 3 was the magic number, in which case this has been the make-or-break flight? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hopefully your car wasn't one of the melted ones. <br />Posted by phaze</DIV><br /> I don't recall melted cars, but I wasn't on site for the launch. I just had to look at a lot of pieces and a boat load of analysis.</p><p>But I think the failure that I had in mind was in about 1996 or 1997.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hopefully your car wasn't one of the melted ones. <br />Posted by phaze</DIV><br /> I don't recall melted cars, but I wasn't on site for the launch. I just had to look at a lot of pieces and a boat load of analysis.</p><p>But I think the failure that I had in mind was in about 1996 or 1997.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>didn't Elon once say that 3 was the magic number, in which case this has been the make-or-break flight? <br />Posted by spacefire</DIV></p><p>http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/080516-sn-falcon-3rdlaunch.html</p><p><span style="font-family:Arial">"I made a stupid comment once," Musk told reporters during a May 14 lunch here sponsored by the Space Foundation. "I was asked, 'how many failures can you withstand?' I said, 'well, if we had three failures in a row, then I suspect we would not get any customers, and then it wouldn't make sense to continue.' I was partially quoted thereafter saying, 'three failures and we're out.' That's actually not the full statement. The full statement was if our customers abandon us, then we are out."</span></p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>didn't Elon once say that 3 was the magic number, in which case this has been the make-or-break flight? <br />Posted by spacefire</DIV></p><p>http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/080516-sn-falcon-3rdlaunch.html</p><p><span style="font-family:Arial">"I made a stupid comment once," Musk told reporters during a May 14 lunch here sponsored by the Space Foundation. "I was asked, 'how many failures can you withstand?' I said, 'well, if we had three failures in a row, then I suspect we would not get any customers, and then it wouldn't make sense to continue.' I was partially quoted thereafter saying, 'three failures and we're out.' That's actually not the full statement. The full statement was if our customers abandon us, then we are out."</span></p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#ff0000">Hopefully your car wasn't one of the melted ones. <br /> Posted by phaze</font></DIV></p><p><font size="2"><strong>That was the Delta 2 launch after the one that launched Mars Pathfinder. Thankfully the failure was not that one. IIRC the Delta 2 has only hosed up twice in what, 40 odd years. </strong></font></p><p><font size="2"><strong>Also IIRC the 1998 failure was due to an SRB casing failure? </strong></font></p><font size="2" color="#000000"><strong>Really I think with SpaceX's latest fiasco, NASA should cancel COTS & go back to launching her own hardware, rather than relying on amateurs.</strong></font><p><font size="2"><strong>Andrew Brown. </strong></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#ff0000">Hopefully your car wasn't one of the melted ones. <br /> Posted by phaze</font></DIV></p><p><font size="2"><strong>That was the Delta 2 launch after the one that launched Mars Pathfinder. Thankfully the failure was not that one. IIRC the Delta 2 has only hosed up twice in what, 40 odd years. </strong></font></p><p><font size="2"><strong>Also IIRC the 1998 failure was due to an SRB casing failure? </strong></font></p><font size="2" color="#000000"><strong>Really I think with SpaceX's latest fiasco, NASA should cancel COTS & go back to launching her own hardware, rather than relying on amateurs.</strong></font><p><font size="2"><strong>Andrew Brown. </strong></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That was the Delta 2 launch after the one that launched Mars Pathfinder. Thankfully the failure was not that one. IIRC the Delta 2 has only hosed up twice in what, 40 odd years. Also IIRC the 1998 failure was due to an SRB casing failure? Really I think with SpaceX's latest fiasco, NASA should cancel COTS & go back to launching her own hardware, rather than relying on amateurs.Andrew Brown. <br /> Posted by 3488</DIV></p><p> I think that's a little harsh. SpaceX may very well fail, but to say it's just a fiasco and they are amateurs is unfair. NASA has had plenty of failures in its time and people weren't running in to declare them all amateurs.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That was the Delta 2 launch after the one that launched Mars Pathfinder. Thankfully the failure was not that one. IIRC the Delta 2 has only hosed up twice in what, 40 odd years. Also IIRC the 1998 failure was due to an SRB casing failure? Really I think with SpaceX's latest fiasco, NASA should cancel COTS & go back to launching her own hardware, rather than relying on amateurs.Andrew Brown. <br /> Posted by 3488</DIV></p><p> I think that's a little harsh. SpaceX may very well fail, but to say it's just a fiasco and they are amateurs is unfair. NASA has had plenty of failures in its time and people weren't running in to declare them all amateurs.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That was the Delta 2 launch after the one that launched Mars Pathfinder. Thankfully the failure was not that one. IIRC the Delta 2 has only hosed up twice in what, 40 odd years. Also IIRC the 1998 failure was due to an SRB casing failure? Andrew Brown. <br />Posted by 3488</DIV></p><p>The failure was due to damage to the SRB casing that occurred sometime after delivery. There is a tremendous amount of data that shows that the case was intact and structurally sound when it was delivered. </p><p>The precise cause of the damage was never conclusively identified.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That was the Delta 2 launch after the one that launched Mars Pathfinder. Thankfully the failure was not that one. IIRC the Delta 2 has only hosed up twice in what, 40 odd years. Also IIRC the 1998 failure was due to an SRB casing failure? Andrew Brown. <br />Posted by 3488</DIV></p><p>The failure was due to damage to the SRB casing that occurred sometime after delivery. There is a tremendous amount of data that shows that the case was intact and structurally sound when it was delivered. </p><p>The precise cause of the damage was never conclusively identified.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>These are the events that should've been happening right about the time of the anomaly. </p><p> </p><p><strong>T+02:20 - Inertial Guidance</strong> </p><p>The Falcon 1 guidance system switches to inertial mode. </p><p><strong>T+02:25 - Second Stage Pressurization</strong> </p><p>The second stage's kerosene and liquid oxygen tanks are pressurized in preparation for the ignition of the Kestrel engine. </p><p> </p><p>Actually... we saw up until it looked like the Merlin engine had shutdown. At least to me it looked like it did... shortly afterwards, separation was supposed to happen.</p><p> </p><p><strong>T+02:38 - MECO</strong> </p><p>The Merlin engine exhausts its supply of propellant and shuts down. </p><p><strong>T+02:39 - Stage Separation</strong> </p><p>The first and second stage separate. </p><p><strong>T+02:43 - Kestrel Ignition</strong> </p><p>The second stage Kestrel engine ignites and ramps up to 6,900 pounds of thrust. </p><p> </p><p>Given the video delay they had us on, maybe it vaporized during the separation/startup.</p><p> </p><p> </p>
<p>These are the events that should've been happening right about the time of the anomaly. </p><p> </p><p><strong>T+02:20 - Inertial Guidance</strong> </p><p>The Falcon 1 guidance system switches to inertial mode. </p><p><strong>T+02:25 - Second Stage Pressurization</strong> </p><p>The second stage's kerosene and liquid oxygen tanks are pressurized in preparation for the ignition of the Kestrel engine. </p><p> </p><p>Actually... we saw up until it looked like the Merlin engine had shutdown. At least to me it looked like it did... shortly afterwards, separation was supposed to happen.</p><p> </p><p><strong>T+02:38 - MECO</strong> </p><p>The Merlin engine exhausts its supply of propellant and shuts down. </p><p><strong>T+02:39 - Stage Separation</strong> </p><p>The first and second stage separate. </p><p><strong>T+02:43 - Kestrel Ignition</strong> </p><p>The second stage Kestrel engine ignites and ramps up to 6,900 pounds of thrust. </p><p> </p><p>Given the video delay they had us on, maybe it vaporized during the separation/startup.</p><p> </p><p> </p>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The failure was due to damage to the SRB casing that occurred sometime after delivery. There is a tremendous amount of data that shows that the case was intact and structurally sound when it was delivered. The precise cause of the damage was never conclusively identified. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />ie. someone ran into it with a forklift or similar?
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The failure was due to damage to the SRB casing that occurred sometime after delivery. There is a tremendous amount of data that shows that the case was intact and structurally sound when it was delivered. The precise cause of the damage was never conclusively identified. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />ie. someone ran into it with a forklift or similar?
<p>Did you have a rethink, Andrew? <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p><p>I've been trying to decide whether Musk and his team will be hoping for a similar failure to last time. Should that be the case, they may draw criticism from their sponsors that they have been unable to successfully troubleshoot an issue. Whereas a different fault might suggest more to come if they can get further into flight. Either way, the stakes rise exponentially with each failure.</p><p>Who'd be a private rocketeer.</p><p> </p><p>SK <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/7/9/97ef1c32-05ab-4572-99f2-e0b7f22544f1.Medium.gif" alt="" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>
<p>Did you have a rethink, Andrew? <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p><p>I've been trying to decide whether Musk and his team will be hoping for a similar failure to last time. Should that be the case, they may draw criticism from their sponsors that they have been unable to successfully troubleshoot an issue. Whereas a different fault might suggest more to come if they can get further into flight. Either way, the stakes rise exponentially with each failure.</p><p>Who'd be a private rocketeer.</p><p> </p><p>SK <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/7/9/97ef1c32-05ab-4572-99f2-e0b7f22544f1.Medium.gif" alt="" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ie. someone ran into it with a forklift or similar? <br />Posted by phaze</DIV></p><p>I don't know, but I doubt it was anything quite like that. Damage from a fork lift would probably have been quite visible prior to the launch. Whatever it was was not readily visible prior to the launch.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ie. someone ran into it with a forklift or similar? <br />Posted by phaze</DIV></p><p>I don't know, but I doubt it was anything quite like that. Damage from a fork lift would probably have been quite visible prior to the launch. Whatever it was was not readily visible prior to the launch.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I think that's a little harsh. SpaceX may very well fail, but to say it's just a fiasco and they are amateurs is unfair. NASA has had plenty of failures in its time and people weren't running in to declare them all amateurs. <br />Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV></p><p>They did not look very professional today. The failure is probably the obvious thing, but I was a bit concerned with the rapidity with which they reset after the abort. When there is an abort one normally takes the time, a lot more than 15 minutes, to understand the reason in complete detail before going back to a ready status. That probably had nothing to do with the failure after more than 2 minutes of flight, but it is indicative of a troublesome attitude on the part of the technical people involved.</p><p>They have not yet said whether the rocket blew up or not (I assume that it did). But even then there are 3 distinct reasons and they depend strongly on the failure mode:</p><p>1) It could have blown up internally due to something not involving the flight termination system</p><p>2) I tcould have been destroyed by the flight termination system under automatic control because of something that was sensed on board. Most systems, for instance, have break wires to sense a breakup of the structure and initiate the destruct ordnance.</p><p>3) There may have been a command destruct, i.e. a destruct signal issued by launch control. That is done most commonly if the rocket deviates significantly from the flight path and is threatening people or property (or shipping) outside of the flight corridor.</p><p>It will be interesting to hear what the basic cause of the anomaly was. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I think that's a little harsh. SpaceX may very well fail, but to say it's just a fiasco and they are amateurs is unfair. NASA has had plenty of failures in its time and people weren't running in to declare them all amateurs. <br />Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV></p><p>They did not look very professional today. The failure is probably the obvious thing, but I was a bit concerned with the rapidity with which they reset after the abort. When there is an abort one normally takes the time, a lot more than 15 minutes, to understand the reason in complete detail before going back to a ready status. That probably had nothing to do with the failure after more than 2 minutes of flight, but it is indicative of a troublesome attitude on the part of the technical people involved.</p><p>They have not yet said whether the rocket blew up or not (I assume that it did). But even then there are 3 distinct reasons and they depend strongly on the failure mode:</p><p>1) It could have blown up internally due to something not involving the flight termination system</p><p>2) I tcould have been destroyed by the flight termination system under automatic control because of something that was sensed on board. Most systems, for instance, have break wires to sense a breakup of the structure and initiate the destruct ordnance.</p><p>3) There may have been a command destruct, i.e. a destruct signal issued by launch control. That is done most commonly if the rocket deviates significantly from the flight path and is threatening people or property (or shipping) outside of the flight corridor.</p><p>It will be interesting to hear what the basic cause of the anomaly was. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#ff0000">The failure was due to damage to the SRB casing that occurred sometime after delivery. There is a tremendous amount of data that shows that the case was intact and structurally sound when it was delivered. The precise cause of the damage was never conclusively identified. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</font></DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#ff0000">ie. someone ran into it with a forklift or similar? <br /> Posted by phaze</font></DIV></p><p>I<font size="2"><strong> never realised the cause was never identified. It did sould like a launch site accident by the sounds of it. Those cars, really were toast. Also with the Delta 2, it looked as if the Delta continued to climb a short while before completely being consumed by the fireball. Nearly ten years ago.</strong></font></p><p><font size="3" color="#000080"><strong>Delta 2 1998 explosion. </strong></font></p><p><font size="2"><strong>Andrew Brown. </strong></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
UFO whistleblowers tell Congress 'we are not alone in the cosmos' (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 38
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 171
-
-
US Congress will hold another UFO hearing this week. Here's how to watch
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 19
-
The US is now at risk of losing to China in the race to send people back to the Moon’s surface
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 12
-
NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab laying off 5% of its workforce
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
James Webb Space Telescope finds galaxies pointing toward a dark matter alternative
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 3
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram