SpaceX Falcon I - Flight 3 Launch Failure T+2:20

[3488]

<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.&nbsp; There is a tremendous amount of data that shows that the case was intact and structurally sound when it was delivered.&nbsp;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.&nbsp;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.&nbsp;</strong></font></p><p><font size="2"><strong>Andrew Brown.&nbsp;</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>

 

[SpeedRunner]

I wonder... do they have to compensate the USAF for the sattelite that was lost?

 

[SpeedRunner]

I wonder... do they have to compensate the USAF for the sattelite that was lost?

 

[docm]

hearing on spacevidcast.com it was a 1st stage sep failure + 2nd stage ignition - boom <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

hearing on spacevidcast.com it was a 1st stage sep failure + 2nd stage ignition - boom <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#3366ff">I wonder... do they have to compensate the USAF for the sattelite that was lost? <br /></font><strong>Posted by SpeedRunner</strong></DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I'd say it's unlikely.&nbsp; SpaceX's customers will (or should be!) going into this partnership with their eyes wide open as to the untried nature of this venture.&nbsp; As the saying goes, they will be hoping for the best but planning for the worst.&nbsp; The true cost to SpaceX will be the declining confidence of the USAF, and other current/potential customers, with each launch failure.</p><p>No doubt the USAF have their own people in the loop, and they will be constantly critically evaluating whether they are backing a winner here.&nbsp; As the anomaly data flows back to them, they will make that judgement and decide if they will offer another payload up to SpaceX for launch.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>SK&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/4/768d44ea-fd98-4289-94fa-c31cd21fd641.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>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#3366ff">I wonder... do they have to compensate the USAF for the sattelite that was lost? <br /></font><strong>Posted by SpeedRunner</strong></DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I'd say it's unlikely.&nbsp; SpaceX's customers will (or should be!) going into this partnership with their eyes wide open as to the untried nature of this venture.&nbsp; As the saying goes, they will be hoping for the best but planning for the worst.&nbsp; The true cost to SpaceX will be the declining confidence of the USAF, and other current/potential customers, with each launch failure.</p><p>No doubt the USAF have their own people in the loop, and they will be constantly critically evaluating whether they are backing a winner here.&nbsp; As the anomaly data flows back to them, they will make that judgement and decide if they will offer another payload up to SpaceX for launch.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>SK&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/4/768d44ea-fd98-4289-94fa-c31cd21fd641.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>

 

[docm]

<p>Elon's sent this to NSF's Chris Bergin</p><p><strong>Quote:</strong><br /> <br />&nbsp;It was obviously a big disappointment not to reach orbit on this flight. On the plus side, the flight of our first stage, with the new Merlin 1C engine that will be used in Falcon 9, was picture perfect. Unfortunately, a problem occurred with stage separation, causing the stages to be held together. This is under investigation and I will send out a note as soon as we understand exactly what happened. <br /> <br /> The most important message I&rsquo;d like to send right now is that SpaceX will not skip a beat in execution going forward. We have flight four of Falcon 1 almost ready for flight and flight five right behind that. I have also given the go ahead to begin fabrication of flight six. Falcon 9 development will also continue unabated, taking into account the lessons learned with Falcon 1. We have made great progress this past week with the successful nine engine firing.<br /> <br /> As a precautionary measure to guard against the possibility of flight 3 not reaching orbit, SpaceX recently accepted a significant investment. Combined with our existing cash reserves, that ensures we will have more than sufficient funding on hand to continue launching Falcon 1 and develop Falcon 9 and Dragon. There should be absolutely zero question that SpaceX will prevail in reaching orbit and demonstrating reliable space transport. For my part, I will never give up and I mean never. <br /> <br /> Thanks for your hard work and now on to flight four.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

<p>Elon's sent this to NSF's Chris Bergin</p><p><strong>Quote:</strong><br /> <br />&nbsp;It was obviously a big disappointment not to reach orbit on this flight. On the plus side, the flight of our first stage, with the new Merlin 1C engine that will be used in Falcon 9, was picture perfect. Unfortunately, a problem occurred with stage separation, causing the stages to be held together. This is under investigation and I will send out a note as soon as we understand exactly what happened. <br /> <br /> The most important message I&rsquo;d like to send right now is that SpaceX will not skip a beat in execution going forward. We have flight four of Falcon 1 almost ready for flight and flight five right behind that. I have also given the go ahead to begin fabrication of flight six. Falcon 9 development will also continue unabated, taking into account the lessons learned with Falcon 1. We have made great progress this past week with the successful nine engine firing.<br /> <br /> As a precautionary measure to guard against the possibility of flight 3 not reaching orbit, SpaceX recently accepted a significant investment. Combined with our existing cash reserves, that ensures we will have more than sufficient funding on hand to continue launching Falcon 1 and develop Falcon 9 and Dragon. There should be absolutely zero question that SpaceX will prevail in reaching orbit and demonstrating reliable space transport. For my part, I will never give up and I mean never. <br /> <br /> Thanks for your hard work and now on to flight four.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MarkStanaway]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They did not look very professional today.&nbsp; The failure is probably the obvious thing, but I was a bit concerned with the rapidity with which they reset after the abort.&nbsp;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.<br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Looks like a case of 'Go' fever.</p><p>Yet another demonstration of what happens when launch teams are afflicted with this malady!&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MarkStanaway]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They did not look very professional today.&nbsp; The failure is probably the obvious thing, but I was a bit concerned with the rapidity with which they reset after the abort.&nbsp;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.<br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Looks like a case of 'Go' fever.</p><p>Yet another demonstration of what happens when launch teams are afflicted with this malady!&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nimbus]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Elon's sent this to NSF's Chris BerginQuote: &nbsp;It was obviously a big disappointment not to reach orbit on this flight. On the plus side, the flight of our first stage, with the new Merlin 1C engine that will be used in Falcon 9, was picture perfect. Unfortunately, a problem occurred with stage separation, causing the stages to be held together. This is under investigation and I will send out a note as soon as we understand exactly what happened. The most important message I&rsquo;d like to send right now is that SpaceX will not skip a beat in execution going forward. We have flight four of Falcon 1 almost ready for flight and flight five right behind that. I have also given the go ahead to begin fabrication of flight six. Falcon 9 development will also continue unabated, taking into account the lessons learned with Falcon 1. We have made great progress this past week with the successful nine engine firing. As a precautionary measure to guard against the possibility of flight 3 not reaching orbit, SpaceX recently accepted a significant investment. Combined with our existing cash reserves, that ensures we will have more than sufficient funding on hand to continue launching Falcon 1 and develop Falcon 9 and Dragon. There should be absolutely zero question that SpaceX will prevail in reaching orbit and demonstrating reliable space transport. For my part, I will never give up and I mean never. Thanks for your hard work and now on to flight four. <br /> Posted by docm</DIV>Now that's admirable.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nimbus]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Elon's sent this to NSF's Chris BerginQuote: &nbsp;It was obviously a big disappointment not to reach orbit on this flight. On the plus side, the flight of our first stage, with the new Merlin 1C engine that will be used in Falcon 9, was picture perfect. Unfortunately, a problem occurred with stage separation, causing the stages to be held together. This is under investigation and I will send out a note as soon as we understand exactly what happened. The most important message I&rsquo;d like to send right now is that SpaceX will not skip a beat in execution going forward. We have flight four of Falcon 1 almost ready for flight and flight five right behind that. I have also given the go ahead to begin fabrication of flight six. Falcon 9 development will also continue unabated, taking into account the lessons learned with Falcon 1. We have made great progress this past week with the successful nine engine firing. As a precautionary measure to guard against the possibility of flight 3 not reaching orbit, SpaceX recently accepted a significant investment. Combined with our existing cash reserves, that ensures we will have more than sufficient funding on hand to continue launching Falcon 1 and develop Falcon 9 and Dragon. There should be absolutely zero question that SpaceX will prevail in reaching orbit and demonstrating reliable space transport. For my part, I will never give up and I mean never. Thanks for your hard work and now on to flight four. <br /> Posted by docm</DIV>Now that's admirable.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Looks like a case of 'Go' fever.Yet another demonstration of what happens when launch teams are afflicted with this malady!&nbsp; <br /> Posted by MarkStanaway</DIV></p><p>It doesn't appear the problem had anything to do with the 1st stage propulsion system, it was the seperation process that was the issue.&nbsp; So while they may have had "Go" fever when it came to recycling the main propulsion system, even if they had delayed the launch the same separation issue very likely could have occurred anyway.&nbsp; The whole situation sucks obviously, but I don't think they need to get hit with any more blame than is necessary.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Looks like a case of 'Go' fever.Yet another demonstration of what happens when launch teams are afflicted with this malady!&nbsp; <br /> Posted by MarkStanaway</DIV></p><p>It doesn't appear the problem had anything to do with the 1st stage propulsion system, it was the seperation process that was the issue.&nbsp; So while they may have had "Go" fever when it came to recycling the main propulsion system, even if they had delayed the launch the same separation issue very likely could have occurred anyway.&nbsp; The whole situation sucks obviously, but I don't think they need to get hit with any more blame than is necessary.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[job1207]

<p>three failures is no big deal, unless, you have money trouble. Musk's statement implies that if it was NOT for the recent investment, there WOULD be money troubles. Many have come and gone before Musk. </p><p>So we will have to see. Let's send a team of Nasa engineers out there to go over the thing from one end to the other. I suspect they need it.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;BTW, didn't they get further last time??? Please advise.&nbsp; </p>

 

[job1207]

<p>three failures is no big deal, unless, you have money trouble. Musk's statement implies that if it was NOT for the recent investment, there WOULD be money troubles. Many have come and gone before Musk. </p><p>So we will have to see. Let's send a team of Nasa engineers out there to go over the thing from one end to the other. I suspect they need it.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;BTW, didn't they get further last time??? Please advise.&nbsp; </p>

 

[ThereIWas2]

Yes, they got quite a bit further than this on flight 2.&nbsp;&nbsp; One slight separation problem though induced the 2nd stage wobble that eventually terminated the flight.&nbsp; While the lack of slosh baffles made the 2nd stage vulnerable that time, still it was a separation anomaly that initiated the problem sequence.&nbsp; Different I think from this one.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><span class="postbody"><span style="font-style:italic"><br /></span></span></p> </div>

 

[ThereIWas2]

Yes, they got quite a bit further than this on flight 2.&nbsp;&nbsp; One slight separation problem though induced the 2nd stage wobble that eventually terminated the flight.&nbsp; While the lack of slosh baffles made the 2nd stage vulnerable that time, still it was a separation anomaly that initiated the problem sequence.&nbsp; Different I think from this one.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><span class="postbody"><span style="font-style:italic"><br /></span></span></p> </div>

 

[job1207]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, they got quite a bit further than this on flight 2.&nbsp;&nbsp; One slight separation problem though induced the 2nd stage wobble that eventually terminated the flight.&nbsp; While the lack of slosh baffles made the 2nd stage vulnerable that time, still it was a separation anomaly that initiated the problem sequence.&nbsp; Different I think from this one. <br /> Posted by ThereIWas2</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;So you are saying that this is a quality assurance problem? I am not sure which is easier to fix, QA or design. Oh well.&nbsp; </p>

 

[job1207]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, they got quite a bit further than this on flight 2.&nbsp;&nbsp; One slight separation problem though induced the 2nd stage wobble that eventually terminated the flight.&nbsp; While the lack of slosh baffles made the 2nd stage vulnerable that time, still it was a separation anomaly that initiated the problem sequence.&nbsp; Different I think from this one. <br /> Posted by ThereIWas2</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;So you are saying that this is a quality assurance problem? I am not sure which is easier to fix, QA or design. Oh well.&nbsp; </p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I wonder... do they have to compensate the USAF for the sattelite that was lost? <br />Posted by SpeedRunner</DIV></p><p>Probably not.&nbsp; In most cases the payload owner is responsible for the payload.&nbsp; Commercial customers usually have insurance for the payload, and it usually covers reaching the prescribed orbit or at least a useful orbit.</p><p>However that insurance is expensive, a significant portion of the overall launch cost.&nbsp; With the 0-3 record for the Falcon 1, and Space-x in general the cost of insurance will probably be quite high, and I would not be surprised if it was prohibitive.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I wonder... do they have to compensate the USAF for the sattelite that was lost? <br />Posted by SpeedRunner</DIV></p><p>Probably not.&nbsp; In most cases the payload owner is responsible for the payload.&nbsp; Commercial customers usually have insurance for the payload, and it usually covers reaching the prescribed orbit or at least a useful orbit.</p><p>However that insurance is expensive, a significant portion of the overall launch cost.&nbsp; With the 0-3 record for the Falcon 1, and Space-x in general the cost of insurance will probably be quite high, and I would not be surprised if it was prohibitive.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;So you are saying that this is a quality assurance problem? I am not sure which is easier to fix, QA or design. Oh well.&nbsp; <br />Posted by job1207</DIV></p><p>The last item that I saw blamed the problem on explosive bolts.&nbsp; In my opinion that is&nbsp;both a design problem and an QA problem.&nbsp; A QA problem with regard to the ordnance system.</p><p>A design problem because explosive bolts have a bad reputation for reliability and because of that alternative systems are preferred.&nbsp; There are some pretty reliable alternate systems available -- super zip, mild detonating fuse, shaped charged, for instance.</p><p>This strikes me as the sort of failure that was forseeable, should have been caught in design reviews, and should not have happened.&nbsp; It is a failure mode that is well-known and therefore one that other designs take great care to avoid -- among U.S. launch designers.&nbsp; The Russians seem to be a bit more cavalier.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;So you are saying that this is a quality assurance problem? I am not sure which is easier to fix, QA or design. Oh well.&nbsp; <br />Posted by job1207</DIV></p><p>The last item that I saw blamed the problem on explosive bolts.&nbsp; In my opinion that is&nbsp;both a design problem and an QA problem.&nbsp; A QA problem with regard to the ordnance system.</p><p>A design problem because explosive bolts have a bad reputation for reliability and because of that alternative systems are preferred.&nbsp; There are some pretty reliable alternate systems available -- super zip, mild detonating fuse, shaped charged, for instance.</p><p>This strikes me as the sort of failure that was forseeable, should have been caught in design reviews, and should not have happened.&nbsp; It is a failure mode that is well-known and therefore one that other designs take great care to avoid -- among U.S. launch designers.&nbsp; The Russians seem to be a bit more cavalier.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>