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

[JonClarke]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't know why they were developed.&nbsp; They are used in a lot of applications.&nbsp; Some stage separations use them.&nbsp; You do need to be a little careful about the shock that is generated. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Shaped charges were developed to penetrate tank armour.&nbsp; Later other, more constructive applications were developed.</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p>&nbsp;</p><p>Well hopefully they get some good data from this so they can determine precisely what happened, otherwise Flight 4 will seem like a crap shoot.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p>&nbsp;</p><p>Well hopefully they get some good data from this so they can determine precisely what happened, otherwise Flight 4 will seem like a crap shoot.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Well hopefully they get some good data from this so they can determine precisely what happened, otherwise Flight 4 will seem like a crap shoot.&nbsp; <br />Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV></p><p>Staging is one of the more delicate events in the operating sequence of a multi-stage launch vehicle.&nbsp; If they didn't even get good ordnance function for the event, they could not possibly have gotten much useful data for the complete staging event.&nbsp; Explosive bolts are not notably reliable and are a terrible design solution for staging.&nbsp;&nbsp;Use of multiple explosive bolts provides several failure modes, from outright&nbsp;failure to initiate to lousy timing resulting in a non-uniform release of the lower stage.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Problems with explosive bolts and those failure modes should have been caught a long time ago in design reviews.&nbsp; They look like amateurs (or Russians).</p><p>There are reliable ordnance devices that are designed for staging and have a proven track record.&nbsp; But to incorporate them in an existing vehicle will take a bit of re-design, some modification of the hardware at the stage-to-stage interface, and a change in the ordnance firing system.</p><p>But even once you get past the ordnance separation event the key issue is getting the stages separated cleanly without recontact and without damaging the upper stage, particularly the nozzle.&nbsp; There are several ways to do that, and much depends on the altitude and speed (which determines dynamic pressure) and angle of attack&nbsp;when staging occurs.&nbsp; The major point is to keep the stages aligned, with little or no "tip-off" until the upper stage is clear of the lower stage.&nbsp; You can use springs, guiding rails, or just a high degree of knowledge of the gas dynamics of the event, but you have to pay close attention to staging conditions and have performed some pretty sophisticated computational fluid dynamics analysis and in some cases some fairly sophisticated and expensive sub-scale testing.&nbsp; This is not a good place to cut corners.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Well hopefully they get some good data from this so they can determine precisely what happened, otherwise Flight 4 will seem like a crap shoot.&nbsp; <br />Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV></p><p>Staging is one of the more delicate events in the operating sequence of a multi-stage launch vehicle.&nbsp; If they didn't even get good ordnance function for the event, they could not possibly have gotten much useful data for the complete staging event.&nbsp; Explosive bolts are not notably reliable and are a terrible design solution for staging.&nbsp;&nbsp;Use of multiple explosive bolts provides several failure modes, from outright&nbsp;failure to initiate to lousy timing resulting in a non-uniform release of the lower stage.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Problems with explosive bolts and those failure modes should have been caught a long time ago in design reviews.&nbsp; They look like amateurs (or Russians).</p><p>There are reliable ordnance devices that are designed for staging and have a proven track record.&nbsp; But to incorporate them in an existing vehicle will take a bit of re-design, some modification of the hardware at the stage-to-stage interface, and a change in the ordnance firing system.</p><p>But even once you get past the ordnance separation event the key issue is getting the stages separated cleanly without recontact and without damaging the upper stage, particularly the nozzle.&nbsp; There are several ways to do that, and much depends on the altitude and speed (which determines dynamic pressure) and angle of attack&nbsp;when staging occurs.&nbsp; The major point is to keep the stages aligned, with little or no "tip-off" until the upper stage is clear of the lower stage.&nbsp; You can use springs, guiding rails, or just a high degree of knowledge of the gas dynamics of the event, but you have to pay close attention to staging conditions and have performed some pretty sophisticated computational fluid dynamics analysis and in some cases some fairly sophisticated and expensive sub-scale testing.&nbsp; This is not a good place to cut corners.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[aphh]

Does anybody know if SpaceX uses high resolution cameras recording the ascent from the ground and/or airborne? Might give some data for the analysis.<br />

 

[aphh]

Does anybody know if SpaceX uses high resolution cameras recording the ascent from the ground and/or airborne? Might give some data for the analysis.<br />

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Does anybody know if SpaceX uses high resolution cameras recording the ascent from the ground and/or airborne? Might give some data for the analysis. <br /> Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>I don't know if it's high resolution, but they certainly had video onboard the rocket, because I was watching it.&nbsp; They cut off the feed before they let anyone see what happened though.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Does anybody know if SpaceX uses high resolution cameras recording the ascent from the ground and/or airborne? Might give some data for the analysis. <br /> Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>I don't know if it's high resolution, but they certainly had video onboard the rocket, because I was watching it.&nbsp; They cut off the feed before they let anyone see what happened though.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacy600]

<p>http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0421853.htm</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Is this just spin, or is it legit?</p><p>&nbsp;Considering the payload is at the bottom of the ocean. </p>

 

[spacy600]

<p>http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0421853.htm</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Is this just spin, or is it legit?</p><p>&nbsp;Considering the payload is at the bottom of the ocean. </p>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p>Well from SpaceDev's perspective this project was about getting the payload delivered within a short period of time on schedule and on budget, and they did that.&nbsp; So from their perspective that was a success - obviously we'll never know how well the satellite would have worked once it was up there, but realistically with spaceflight there is always the risk of losing the payload, that doesn't mean they failed in their goal to deliver it to SpaceX.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p>Well from SpaceDev's perspective this project was about getting the payload delivered within a short period of time on schedule and on budget, and they did that.&nbsp; So from their perspective that was a success - obviously we'll never know how well the satellite would have worked once it was up there, but realistically with spaceflight there is always the risk of losing the payload, that doesn't mean they failed in their goal to deliver it to SpaceX.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Does anybody know if SpaceX uses high resolution cameras recording the ascent from the ground and/or airborne? Might give some data for the analysis. <br />Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>I doubt there would be any useful video from the ground, the anomaly occurred too late in flight and therefore too high up for ground cameras to be of much use.&nbsp; The real issue is whether there was high speed video from on board.&nbsp; Quite often these failure take place so quickly that only&nbsp; high speed video (at least al hundred frames per second) is useful.&nbsp; Sometimes even higher frame rates are needed to capture anything at all.&nbsp; Of more use is high sample rate instrumentation, particularly acclerometers and strain gauges and&nbsp;guidance commands and feedback signals, if the vehicle was fully instrumented for a first flight.&nbsp;</p><p>It would be interesting to see a flight instrumentation list.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Does anybody know if SpaceX uses high resolution cameras recording the ascent from the ground and/or airborne? Might give some data for the analysis. <br />Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>I doubt there would be any useful video from the ground, the anomaly occurred too late in flight and therefore too high up for ground cameras to be of much use.&nbsp; The real issue is whether there was high speed video from on board.&nbsp; Quite often these failure take place so quickly that only&nbsp; high speed video (at least al hundred frames per second) is useful.&nbsp; Sometimes even higher frame rates are needed to capture anything at all.&nbsp; Of more use is high sample rate instrumentation, particularly acclerometers and strain gauges and&nbsp;guidance commands and feedback signals, if the vehicle was fully instrumented for a first flight.&nbsp;</p><p>It would be interesting to see a flight instrumentation list.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacy600]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I doubt there would be any useful video from the ground, the anomaly occurred too late in flight and therefore too high up for ground cameras to be of much use.&nbsp; The real issue is whether there was high speed video from on board.&nbsp; Quite often these failure take place so quickly that only&nbsp; high speed video (at least al hundred frames per second) is useful.&nbsp; Sometimes even higher frame rates are needed to capture anything at all.&nbsp; Of more use is high sample rate instrumentation, particularly acclerometers and strain gauges and&nbsp;guidance commands and feedback signals, if the vehicle was fully instrumented for a first flight.&nbsp;It would be interesting to see a flight instrumentation list. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><strong>Elon Musk:</strong> We're not quite ready to release details on the initial investigation yet, but we should do it very soon. We think we have a very good idea but I don't want to get ahead of ourselves and then be wrong. We definitely know where the problem occurred, but 'why?' is the question. We think we know, but have to be sure. We think it's very small and will require a tiny change, so tiny that if we had another rocket on the pad we could launch tomorrow.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Musk:</strong> Some things can only be tested in space. Bear in mind, Falcon 1 is our test vehicle. The reason we started with F1 isn't because I'm passionate about launching small satellites, but because I want to make mistakes on a small scale and not a large one. And this doesn't appear to be a quality issue or a manufacturing issue. It's a design issue related to new hardware that has only flown on this flight. It was our first with the new Merlin 1C regeneratively cooled engine. The problem we think we've identified is a lesson learned and thus we won't make it on the big Falcon 9, and in that sense it's helpful.</p>http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2008/08/musk_qa

 

[spacy600]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I doubt there would be any useful video from the ground, the anomaly occurred too late in flight and therefore too high up for ground cameras to be of much use.&nbsp; The real issue is whether there was high speed video from on board.&nbsp; Quite often these failure take place so quickly that only&nbsp; high speed video (at least al hundred frames per second) is useful.&nbsp; Sometimes even higher frame rates are needed to capture anything at all.&nbsp; Of more use is high sample rate instrumentation, particularly acclerometers and strain gauges and&nbsp;guidance commands and feedback signals, if the vehicle was fully instrumented for a first flight.&nbsp;It would be interesting to see a flight instrumentation list. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><strong>Elon Musk:</strong> We're not quite ready to release details on the initial investigation yet, but we should do it very soon. We think we have a very good idea but I don't want to get ahead of ourselves and then be wrong. We definitely know where the problem occurred, but 'why?' is the question. We think we know, but have to be sure. We think it's very small and will require a tiny change, so tiny that if we had another rocket on the pad we could launch tomorrow.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Musk:</strong> Some things can only be tested in space. Bear in mind, Falcon 1 is our test vehicle. The reason we started with F1 isn't because I'm passionate about launching small satellites, but because I want to make mistakes on a small scale and not a large one. And this doesn't appear to be a quality issue or a manufacturing issue. It's a design issue related to new hardware that has only flown on this flight. It was our first with the new Merlin 1C regeneratively cooled engine. The problem we think we've identified is a lesson learned and thus we won't make it on the big Falcon 9, and in that sense it's helpful.</p>http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2008/08/musk_qa

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Posted by spacy600</DIV><br /><br />Thanx for the update. I guess we'll find out soon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Posted by spacy600</DIV><br /><br />Thanx for the update. I guess we'll find out soon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p>&nbsp;</p><p>They announced today they have a new investor (owner) who plunked down $20 million.&nbsp; That should get them through a few more launches, but if they next one blows up, they're screwed.</p><p>I wonder how much one of these launches costs them?&nbsp; I was them I'd do another test launch just to get a damn rocket into orbit and provide confidence for their customers.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p>&nbsp;</p><p>They announced today they have a new investor (owner) who plunked down $20 million.&nbsp; That should get them through a few more launches, but if they next one blows up, they're screwed.</p><p>I wonder how much one of these launches costs them?&nbsp; I was them I'd do another test launch just to get a damn rocket into orbit and provide confidence for their customers.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;They announced today they have a new investor (owner) who plunked down $20 million.&nbsp; That should get them through a few more launches, but if they next one blows up, they're screwed.I wonder how much one of these launches costs them?&nbsp; I was them I'd do another test launch just to get a damn rocket into orbit and provide confidence for their customers.&nbsp; <br />Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV></p><p>Given that they are still in a development phase, and based on costs from other small launchers, I doubt that $20 million would pay for more than one launch.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;They announced today they have a new investor (owner) who plunked down $20 million.&nbsp; That should get them through a few more launches, but if they next one blows up, they're screwed.I wonder how much one of these launches costs them?&nbsp; I was them I'd do another test launch just to get a damn rocket into orbit and provide confidence for their customers.&nbsp; <br />Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV></p><p>Given that they are still in a development phase, and based on costs from other small launchers, I doubt that $20 million would pay for more than one launch.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Elon Musk: We're not quite ready to release details on the initial investigation yet, but we should do it very soon. We think we have a very good idea but I don't want to get ahead of ourselves and then be wrong. We definitely know where the problem occurred, but 'why?' is the question. We think we know, but have to be sure. We think it's very small and will require a tiny change, so tiny that if we had another rocket on the pad we could launch tomorrow.&nbsp;Musk: Some things can only be tested in space. Bear in mind, Falcon 1 is our test vehicle. The reason we started with F1 isn't because I'm passionate about launching small satellites, but because I want to make mistakes on a small scale and not a large one. And this doesn't appear to be a quality issue or a manufacturing issue. It's a design issue related to new hardware that has only flown on this flight. It was our first with the new Merlin 1C regeneratively cooled engine. The problem we think we've identified is a lesson learned and thus we won't make it on the big Falcon 9, and in that sense it's helpful.http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2008/08/musk_qa <br />Posted by spacy600</DIV></p><p>This sounds a lot like a guy with a lot of money and no understanding whatever of rockets.&nbsp; The era of build 'em and bust 'em development passed decades ago.&nbsp; It that is his approach stand by for many more failures.&nbsp; He may think he knows what the problem is, and he might even be right, but if he is willing to commit to that this early in the game then his failure analysis methodology is&nbsp;sloppy.&nbsp; He has not had time yet to do the necessary grunt work and analysis to make such statements.</p><p>If this is, as he says,&nbsp;a design issue then there is no much excuse for not having&nbsp;caught the problem on the ground well before a launch.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Elon Musk: We're not quite ready to release details on the initial investigation yet, but we should do it very soon. We think we have a very good idea but I don't want to get ahead of ourselves and then be wrong. We definitely know where the problem occurred, but 'why?' is the question. We think we know, but have to be sure. We think it's very small and will require a tiny change, so tiny that if we had another rocket on the pad we could launch tomorrow.&nbsp;Musk: Some things can only be tested in space. Bear in mind, Falcon 1 is our test vehicle. The reason we started with F1 isn't because I'm passionate about launching small satellites, but because I want to make mistakes on a small scale and not a large one. And this doesn't appear to be a quality issue or a manufacturing issue. It's a design issue related to new hardware that has only flown on this flight. It was our first with the new Merlin 1C regeneratively cooled engine. The problem we think we've identified is a lesson learned and thus we won't make it on the big Falcon 9, and in that sense it's helpful.http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2008/08/musk_qa <br />Posted by spacy600</DIV></p><p>This sounds a lot like a guy with a lot of money and no understanding whatever of rockets.&nbsp; The era of build 'em and bust 'em development passed decades ago.&nbsp; It that is his approach stand by for many more failures.&nbsp; He may think he knows what the problem is, and he might even be right, but if he is willing to commit to that this early in the game then his failure analysis methodology is&nbsp;sloppy.&nbsp; He has not had time yet to do the necessary grunt work and analysis to make such statements.</p><p>If this is, as he says,&nbsp;a design issue then there is no much excuse for not having&nbsp;caught the problem on the ground well before a launch.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>