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

tanstaafl76 · Aug 5, 2008

You may be right and it may be only a matter of time before SpaceX collapses, but I think his statement was more about bolstering morale than giving an accurate appraisal of what occurred in Launch Attempt 3.And if you're correct about costs, it sounds like they have one more chance to make this thing work.  They lose yet another rocket, he can't come out and make this same statement again after four consecutive failures from a company whose core business plan is to provide reliable orbital payload delivery.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

tanstaafl76 · Aug 5, 2008

You may be right and it may be only a matter of time before SpaceX collapses, but I think his statement was more about bolstering morale than giving an accurate appraisal of what occurred in Launch Attempt 3.And if you're correct about costs, it sounds like they have one more chance to make this thing work.  They lose yet another rocket, he can't come out and make this same statement again after four consecutive failures from a company whose core business plan is to provide reliable orbital payload delivery.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

tanstaafl76 · Aug 6, 2008

New article out: http://www.space.com/news/080806-spacex-falcon1-update.htmlNo, I'm not psychic, I swear!   "As it stands, SpaceX expects to have its next Falcon 1 in place for a fourth launch attempt as soon as September. That launch will now be a demonstration launch, Musk said, since SpaceX had previously promised to its next customer, the Malaysian space agency, that it would prove Falcon 1's ability to reach orbit before attempting to launch the company's Razaksat spacecraft." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

tanstaafl76 · Aug 6, 2008

New article out: http://www.space.com/news/080806-spacex-falcon1-update.htmlNo, I'm not psychic, I swear!   "As it stands, SpaceX expects to have its next Falcon 1 in place for a fourth launch attempt as soon as September. That launch will now be a demonstration launch, Musk said, since SpaceX had previously promised to its next customer, the Malaysian space agency, that it would prove Falcon 1's ability to reach orbit before attempting to launch the company's Razaksat spacecraft." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

windnwar · Aug 7, 2008

Dr. Rocket I'm going to say that you don't seem to understand the man or his company. The launch failures to date have all been good learning experiences and they've made alot of progress in a very short period of time. They certainly don't seem to be skipping corners in any way, unlike what you seem to think. What they have done is cut out the expense of the beuracrats associated with other launch vehicles. They nearly completed the second launch and a bit of unexpected thrust from a brand new engine in flight ended this launch. Learning and improving does not seem to be an issue. I think your being overly critical of a company that is trying a new approach and is getting very close to being successful at it. Sometimes it takes a new set of eyes to find a better way to do it then the tried and true approach even if it results in some failures before the kinks are worked out. As for explosive bolts being unreliable, i'd say that depends on the heritage of them. NASA uses a hell of a lot of them on every shuttle flight and they haven't doomed a shuttle flight yet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein" </div>

windnwar · Aug 7, 2008

Dr. Rocket I'm going to say that you don't seem to understand the man or his company. The launch failures to date have all been good learning experiences and they've made alot of progress in a very short period of time. They certainly don't seem to be skipping corners in any way, unlike what you seem to think. What they have done is cut out the expense of the beuracrats associated with other launch vehicles. They nearly completed the second launch and a bit of unexpected thrust from a brand new engine in flight ended this launch. Learning and improving does not seem to be an issue. I think your being overly critical of a company that is trying a new approach and is getting very close to being successful at it. Sometimes it takes a new set of eyes to find a better way to do it then the tried and true approach even if it results in some failures before the kinks are worked out. As for explosive bolts being unreliable, i'd say that depends on the heritage of them. NASA uses a hell of a lot of them on every shuttle flight and they haven't doomed a shuttle flight yet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein" </div>

docm · Aug 7, 2008

Just posted in SpaceX's updates....Quote:MESSAGE FROM ELON MUSK: FALCON 1, FLIGHT 3 MISSION SUMMARYPosted August 6, 2008Timing is Everything On August 2nd, Falcon 1 executed a picture perfect first stage flight, ultimately reaching an altitude of 217 km, but encountered a problem just after stage separation that prevented the second stage from reaching orbit.  At this point, we are certain as to the origin of the problem.  Four methods of analysis – vehicle inertial measurement, chamber pressure, onboard video and a simple physics free body calculation – all give the same answer.  The problem arose due to the longer thrust decay transient of our new Merlin 1C regeneratively cooled engine, as compared to the prior flight that used our old Merlin 1A ablatively cooled engine.  Unlike the ablative engine, the regen engine had unburned fuel in the cooling channels and manifold that combined with a small amount of residual oxygen to produce a small thrust that was just enough to overcome the stage separation pusher impulse.  We were aware of and had allowed for a thrust transient, but did not expect it to last that long.  As it turned out, a very small increase in the time between commanding main engine shutdown and stage separation would have been enough to save the mission. The question then is why didn't we catch this issue?  Unfortunately, the engine chamber pressure is so low for this transient thrust -- only about 10 psi -- that it barely registered on our ground test stand in Texas where ambient pressure is 14.5 psi.  However, in vacuum that 10 psi chamber pressure produced enough thrust to cause the first stage to recontact the second stage.  It looks like we may have flight four on the launch pad as soon as next month.  The long gap between flight two and three was mainly due to the Merlin 1C regen engine development, but there are no technology upgrades between flight three and four.  Good Things About This Flight <ul><li> Merlin 1C and overall first stage performance was excellent </li><li> The stage separation system worked properly, in that all bolts fired and the pneumatic pushers delivered the correct impulse  </li><li> Second stage ignited and achieved nominal chamber pressure </li><li> Fairing separated correctly </li><li> We discovered this transient problem on Falcon 1 rather than Falcon 9 </li><li> Rocket stages were integrated, rolled out and launched in seven days </li><li> Neither the near miss potential failures of flight two nor any new ones were present </li></ul> The only untested portion of flight is whether or not we have solved the main problem of flight two, where the control system coupled with the slosh modes of the liquid oxygen tank.  Given the addition of slosh baffles and significant improvements to the control logic, I feel confident that this will not be an issue for the upcoming flight four.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

docm · Aug 7, 2008

Just posted in SpaceX's updates....Quote:MESSAGE FROM ELON MUSK: FALCON 1, FLIGHT 3 MISSION SUMMARYPosted August 6, 2008Timing is Everything On August 2nd, Falcon 1 executed a picture perfect first stage flight, ultimately reaching an altitude of 217 km, but encountered a problem just after stage separation that prevented the second stage from reaching orbit.  At this point, we are certain as to the origin of the problem.  Four methods of analysis – vehicle inertial measurement, chamber pressure, onboard video and a simple physics free body calculation – all give the same answer.  The problem arose due to the longer thrust decay transient of our new Merlin 1C regeneratively cooled engine, as compared to the prior flight that used our old Merlin 1A ablatively cooled engine.  Unlike the ablative engine, the regen engine had unburned fuel in the cooling channels and manifold that combined with a small amount of residual oxygen to produce a small thrust that was just enough to overcome the stage separation pusher impulse.  We were aware of and had allowed for a thrust transient, but did not expect it to last that long.  As it turned out, a very small increase in the time between commanding main engine shutdown and stage separation would have been enough to save the mission. The question then is why didn't we catch this issue?  Unfortunately, the engine chamber pressure is so low for this transient thrust -- only about 10 psi -- that it barely registered on our ground test stand in Texas where ambient pressure is 14.5 psi.  However, in vacuum that 10 psi chamber pressure produced enough thrust to cause the first stage to recontact the second stage.  It looks like we may have flight four on the launch pad as soon as next month.  The long gap between flight two and three was mainly due to the Merlin 1C regen engine development, but there are no technology upgrades between flight three and four.  Good Things About This Flight <ul><li> Merlin 1C and overall first stage performance was excellent </li><li> The stage separation system worked properly, in that all bolts fired and the pneumatic pushers delivered the correct impulse  </li><li> Second stage ignited and achieved nominal chamber pressure </li><li> Fairing separated correctly </li><li> We discovered this transient problem on Falcon 1 rather than Falcon 9 </li><li> Rocket stages were integrated, rolled out and launched in seven days </li><li> Neither the near miss potential failures of flight two nor any new ones were present </li></ul> The only untested portion of flight is whether or not we have solved the main problem of flight two, where the control system coupled with the slosh modes of the liquid oxygen tank.  Given the addition of slosh baffles and significant improvements to the control logic, I feel confident that this will not be an issue for the upcoming flight four.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

tanstaafl76 · Aug 7, 2008

Dear Elon,Margins of error, they're what's for dinner!   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

tanstaafl76 · Aug 7, 2008

Dear Elon,Margins of error, they're what's for dinner!   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

shuttle_guy · Aug 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just posted in SpaceX's updates....Quote:MESSAGE FROM ELON MUSK: FALCON 1, FLIGHT 3 MISSION SUMMARYPosted August 6, 2008Timing is Everything On August 2nd, Falcon 1 executed a picture perfect first stage flight, ultimately reaching an altitude of 217 km, but encountered a problem just after stage separation that prevented the second stage from reaching orbit.  At this point, we are certain as to the origin of the problem.  Four methods of analysis – vehicle inertial measurement, chamber pressure, onboard video and a simple physics free body calculation – all give the same answer.  The problem arose due to the longer thrust decay transient of our new Merlin 1C regeneratively cooled engine, as compared to the prior flight that used our old Merlin 1A ablatively cooled engine.  Unlike the ablative engine, the regen engine had unburned fuel in the cooling channels and manifold that combined with a small amount of residual oxygen to produce a small thrust that was just enough to overcome the stage separation pusher impulse.  We were aware of and had allowed for a thrust transient, but did not expect it to last that long.  As it turned out, a very small increase in the time between commanding main engine shutdown and stage separation would have been enough to save the mission. The question then is why didn't we catch this issue?  Unfortunately, the engine chamber pressure is so low for this transient thrust -- only about 10 psi -- that it barely registered on our ground test stand in Texas where ambient pressure is 14.5 psi.  However, in vacuum that 10 psi chamber pressure produced enough thrust to cause the first stage to recontact the second stage.  It looks like we may have flight four on the launch pad as soon as next month.  The long gap between flight two and three was mainly due to the Merlin 1C regen engine development, but there are no technology upgrades between flight three and four.  Good Things About This Flight Merlin 1C and overall first stage performance was excellent The stage separation system worked properly, in that all bolts fired and the pneumatic pushers delivered the correct impulse  Second stage ignited and achieved nominal chamber pressure Fairing separated correctly We discovered this transient problem on Falcon 1 rather than Falcon 9 Rocket stages were integrated, rolled out and launched in seven days Neither the near miss potential failures of flight two nor any new ones were present The only untested portion of flight is whether or not we have solved the main problem of flight two, where the control system coupled with the slosh modes of the liquid oxygen tank.  Given the addition of slosh baffles and significant improvements to the control logic, I feel confident that this will not be an issue for the upcoming flight four.  Posted by docm</DIV>A rookie mistake that should have been caught. They should have doubled the separation timer delay for the flight since the first stage “tail off” was unknown. Then looked at the flight data to refine the timer setting for future flights.   Commercial operations do some engine tests in a chamber where high altitude is simulated. SpaceX apparently did not do those type tests due to the expense of the ground equipment.      <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

shuttle_guy · Aug 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just posted in SpaceX's updates....Quote:MESSAGE FROM ELON MUSK: FALCON 1, FLIGHT 3 MISSION SUMMARYPosted August 6, 2008Timing is Everything On August 2nd, Falcon 1 executed a picture perfect first stage flight, ultimately reaching an altitude of 217 km, but encountered a problem just after stage separation that prevented the second stage from reaching orbit.  At this point, we are certain as to the origin of the problem.  Four methods of analysis – vehicle inertial measurement, chamber pressure, onboard video and a simple physics free body calculation – all give the same answer.  The problem arose due to the longer thrust decay transient of our new Merlin 1C regeneratively cooled engine, as compared to the prior flight that used our old Merlin 1A ablatively cooled engine.  Unlike the ablative engine, the regen engine had unburned fuel in the cooling channels and manifold that combined with a small amount of residual oxygen to produce a small thrust that was just enough to overcome the stage separation pusher impulse.  We were aware of and had allowed for a thrust transient, but did not expect it to last that long.  As it turned out, a very small increase in the time between commanding main engine shutdown and stage separation would have been enough to save the mission. The question then is why didn't we catch this issue?  Unfortunately, the engine chamber pressure is so low for this transient thrust -- only about 10 psi -- that it barely registered on our ground test stand in Texas where ambient pressure is 14.5 psi.  However, in vacuum that 10 psi chamber pressure produced enough thrust to cause the first stage to recontact the second stage.  It looks like we may have flight four on the launch pad as soon as next month.  The long gap between flight two and three was mainly due to the Merlin 1C regen engine development, but there are no technology upgrades between flight three and four.  Good Things About This Flight Merlin 1C and overall first stage performance was excellent The stage separation system worked properly, in that all bolts fired and the pneumatic pushers delivered the correct impulse  Second stage ignited and achieved nominal chamber pressure Fairing separated correctly We discovered this transient problem on Falcon 1 rather than Falcon 9 Rocket stages were integrated, rolled out and launched in seven days Neither the near miss potential failures of flight two nor any new ones were present The only untested portion of flight is whether or not we have solved the main problem of flight two, where the control system coupled with the slosh modes of the liquid oxygen tank.  Given the addition of slosh baffles and significant improvements to the control logic, I feel confident that this will not be an issue for the upcoming flight four.  Posted by docm</DIV>A rookie mistake that should have been caught. They should have doubled the separation timer delay for the flight since the first stage “tail off” was unknown. Then looked at the flight data to refine the timer setting for future flights.   Commercial operations do some engine tests in a chamber where high altitude is simulated. SpaceX apparently did not do those type tests due to the expense of the ground equipment.      <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nimbus · Aug 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A rookie mistake that should have been caught. They should have doubled the separation timer delay for the flight since the first stage “tail off” was unknown. Then looked at the flight data to refine the timer setting for future flights.   Commercial operations do some engine tests in a chamber where high altitude is simulated. SpaceX apparently did not do those type tests due to the expense of the ground equipment.     Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV>I sincerely hope pros like you, DrRocket, and others here whose names I cant recall off-hand, write to Musk or SpaceX's general email adress.. or even snail mail.  Who knows, maybe you will help right their mistakes.  I think there's nothing to lose from it.Respectfuly..  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nimbus · Aug 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A rookie mistake that should have been caught. They should have doubled the separation timer delay for the flight since the first stage “tail off” was unknown. Then looked at the flight data to refine the timer setting for future flights.   Commercial operations do some engine tests in a chamber where high altitude is simulated. SpaceX apparently did not do those type tests due to the expense of the ground equipment.     Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV>I sincerely hope pros like you, DrRocket, and others here whose names I cant recall off-hand, write to Musk or SpaceX's general email adress.. or even snail mail.  Who knows, maybe you will help right their mistakes.  I think there's nothing to lose from it.Respectfuly..  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Cygnus_2112 · Aug 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 1.  What they have done is cut out the expense of the beuracrats associated with other launch vehicles. 2.  Sometimes it takes a new set of eyes to find a better way to do it then the tried and true approach even if it results in some failures before the kinks are worked out.r</DIV> 1.  There are no "bureaucrats" associated with other launch vehicles.    2.  It isn't a better way if it causes failures.   The tried and true approach exists because it has a good success rate

Cygnus_2112 · Aug 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 1.  What they have done is cut out the expense of the beuracrats associated with other launch vehicles. 2.  Sometimes it takes a new set of eyes to find a better way to do it then the tried and true approach even if it results in some failures before the kinks are worked out.r</DIV> 1.  There are no "bureaucrats" associated with other launch vehicles.    2.  It isn't a better way if it causes failures.   The tried and true approach exists because it has a good success rate

DrRocket · Aug 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A rookie mistake that should have been caught. They should have doubled the separation timer delay for the flight since the first stage “tail off” was unknown. Then looked at the flight data to refine the timer setting for future flights.   Commercial operations do some engine tests in a chamber where high altitude is simulated. SpaceX apparently did not do those type tests due to the expense of the ground equipment.     Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV>You could not be more correct. But you are sugar-coating the incompetence that has been exhibited. The mistake in "timing" is not even acceptable for a rookie with any chance of making it in the big leagues.  The second thing you look at in the staging event, after making sure that the stages do in fact separate, is making sure that they do not sustain re-contact damage.  This mistake is just pure bone-headed amateurism.  Extremely sloppy.  The launch industry is not forgiving of mistakes, and the entire approach of this design team is appalling.  This glitch should have been caught in the very first design review.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Aug 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A rookie mistake that should have been caught. They should have doubled the separation timer delay for the flight since the first stage “tail off” was unknown. Then looked at the flight data to refine the timer setting for future flights.   Commercial operations do some engine tests in a chamber where high altitude is simulated. SpaceX apparently did not do those type tests due to the expense of the ground equipment.     Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV>You could not be more correct. But you are sugar-coating the incompetence that has been exhibited. The mistake in "timing" is not even acceptable for a rookie with any chance of making it in the big leagues.  The second thing you look at in the staging event, after making sure that the stages do in fact separate, is making sure that they do not sustain re-contact damage.  This mistake is just pure bone-headed amateurism.  Extremely sloppy.  The launch industry is not forgiving of mistakes, and the entire approach of this design team is appalling.  This glitch should have been caught in the very first design review.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

neuvik · Aug 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A rookie mistake that should have been caught. They should have doubled the separation timer delay for the flight since the first stage “tail off” was unknown. Then looked at the flight data to refine the timer setting for future flights.   Commercial operations do some engine tests in a chamber where high altitude is simulated. SpaceX apparently did not do those type tests due to the expense of the ground equipment.     Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV> Does NASA have vacuum chambers for practical tests that private firms can lease to test their engines?  Or is SpaceX trying to work cut corners and guess in situations they feel they have a grasp on? I suppose they don't do anything like ALTO either ehy? I feel sorry for their engineers, must be a really trying time for them.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck </div>

neuvik · Aug 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A rookie mistake that should have been caught. They should have doubled the separation timer delay for the flight since the first stage “tail off” was unknown. Then looked at the flight data to refine the timer setting for future flights.   Commercial operations do some engine tests in a chamber where high altitude is simulated. SpaceX apparently did not do those type tests due to the expense of the ground equipment.     Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV> Does NASA have vacuum chambers for practical tests that private firms can lease to test their engines?  Or is SpaceX trying to work cut corners and guess in situations they feel they have a grasp on? I suppose they don't do anything like ALTO either ehy? I feel sorry for their engineers, must be a really trying time for them.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck </div>

job1207 · Aug 7, 2008

Ok, they missed the rookie thingy. That said, and faces turned red, is there anything standing out that needs to be addressed. As you know, I tend talk informally, but seriously, when NASA was not even NASA, more or less, they couldn't get a redstone rocket into the air. This was the first actual flight of a redesigned rocket and it worked, save the timing issue. I don't want to make light of your expertise. Certainly, mine is in another area. Looking ahead, are there obvious hurdles???? What would you write to them in an email at this point. Seriously. Are we looking at a dying company or the birth of inexpensive space flight. One of the writers noted that several years ago, that they were happy to see that SpaceX was cutting metal. Obvious isssues aside, ( for instance you really do not want to be driving your actual rocket around the country ) ( I saw the FIRST Falcon I in downtown DC of all places ) And you should not be testing testing testing your actual rocket in live fire tests, what is holding these folks back.....???I suspect that serious QA issues lie at the root of this. I could be wrong. Making another analogy, there is a HUGE difference between the team that always does really well, and the one who actually wins the superbowl.

job1207 · Aug 7, 2008

Ok, they missed the rookie thingy. That said, and faces turned red, is there anything standing out that needs to be addressed. As you know, I tend talk informally, but seriously, when NASA was not even NASA, more or less, they couldn't get a redstone rocket into the air. This was the first actual flight of a redesigned rocket and it worked, save the timing issue. I don't want to make light of your expertise. Certainly, mine is in another area. Looking ahead, are there obvious hurdles???? What would you write to them in an email at this point. Seriously. Are we looking at a dying company or the birth of inexpensive space flight. One of the writers noted that several years ago, that they were happy to see that SpaceX was cutting metal. Obvious isssues aside, ( for instance you really do not want to be driving your actual rocket around the country ) ( I saw the FIRST Falcon I in downtown DC of all places ) And you should not be testing testing testing your actual rocket in live fire tests, what is holding these folks back.....???I suspect that serious QA issues lie at the root of this. I could be wrong. Making another analogy, there is a HUGE difference between the team that always does really well, and the one who actually wins the superbowl.

DrRocket · Aug 8, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok, they missed the rookie thingy. That said, and faces turned red, is there anything standing out that needs to be addressed. As you know, I tend talk informally, but seriously, when NASA was not even NASA, more or less, they couldn't get a redstone rocket into the air. This was the first actual flight of a redesigned rocket and it worked, save the timing issue. I don't want to make light of your expertise. Certainly, mine is in another area. Looking ahead, are there obvious hurdles???? What would you write to them in an email at this point.... Posted by job1207</DIV>Frankly I would not write them an e-mail at all.  Their problems are far deeper than whan can be addressed in an e-mail or on a board like this one.There are lots of hurdles.  Every event in the operation of a rocket is a hurdle.  In order to obtain the necessary performance to reach orbit a rocket is of necessity a string of single-point failure modes.  Good engineering and engineering discipline is needed so that those failure modes do not create actual failures.  Space-X has a long long way to go before they can get to orbit reliably, or apparently at all.A solid design program includes the discipline of rigorous design reviews at several stages in the program.  At a good review the overall architecture and sequence of events is reviewed along with each and every subsystem and part.  Analyses related to each subsystem and part are presented by the responsible engineers and reviewed in detail and questioined by a group of experts.  Events such as launch and staging are treated as subsystems and reviewed as well.  These reviews can take many days.  Usually hundreds of issues are uncovered and documented.  Then each and every issue raised is addressed in detail and closed out by mutual agreement between the responsible engineer, the person who raised the issue and program management.  It is quite clear that either Space-X does not have the requisite discipline or they lack the necessary expertise or both.Trying innovative approaches to developmente of a launcher is laudable.  But that is no excuse for sloppy engineering and program management discipline.  And they appear to be very sloppy indeed.  Reducing recurring costs for a launch system does not mean cutting corners in the engineering that goes into initial development.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Aug 8, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok, they missed the rookie thingy. That said, and faces turned red, is there anything standing out that needs to be addressed. As you know, I tend talk informally, but seriously, when NASA was not even NASA, more or less, they couldn't get a redstone rocket into the air. This was the first actual flight of a redesigned rocket and it worked, save the timing issue. I don't want to make light of your expertise. Certainly, mine is in another area. Looking ahead, are there obvious hurdles???? What would you write to them in an email at this point.... Posted by job1207</DIV>Frankly I would not write them an e-mail at all.  Their problems are far deeper than whan can be addressed in an e-mail or on a board like this one.There are lots of hurdles.  Every event in the operation of a rocket is a hurdle.  In order to obtain the necessary performance to reach orbit a rocket is of necessity a string of single-point failure modes.  Good engineering and engineering discipline is needed so that those failure modes do not create actual failures.  Space-X has a long long way to go before they can get to orbit reliably, or apparently at all.A solid design program includes the discipline of rigorous design reviews at several stages in the program.  At a good review the overall architecture and sequence of events is reviewed along with each and every subsystem and part.  Analyses related to each subsystem and part are presented by the responsible engineers and reviewed in detail and questioined by a group of experts.  Events such as launch and staging are treated as subsystems and reviewed as well.  These reviews can take many days.  Usually hundreds of issues are uncovered and documented.  Then each and every issue raised is addressed in detail and closed out by mutual agreement between the responsible engineer, the person who raised the issue and program management.  It is quite clear that either Space-X does not have the requisite discipline or they lack the necessary expertise or both.Trying innovative approaches to developmente of a launcher is laudable.  But that is no excuse for sloppy engineering and program management discipline.  And they appear to be very sloppy indeed.  Reducing recurring costs for a launch system does not mean cutting corners in the engineering that goes into initial development.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vattas · Aug 8, 2008

DrRocket, do you think that they are not doing all the things that you mentioned in your post?Somehow I  think, that getting something to at least 150km+ up is not what every amateur could do... Don't you think that they have many engineers with the same knowledge as yours in their team?I suspect, that Musk's statement "we could launch tomorrow if we had vehicle on the pad" is just some kind of pose. Of course they wouldn't... There will be reviews of possible solutions, more investigation etc etc.

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

tanstaafl76

Guest

tanstaafl76

Guest

tanstaafl76

Guest

tanstaafl76

Guest

windnwar

Guest

windnwar

Guest

docm

Guest

docm

Guest

tanstaafl76

Guest

tanstaafl76

Guest

shuttle_guy

Guest

shuttle_guy

Guest

nimbus

Guest

nimbus

Guest

Cygnus_2112

Guest

Cygnus_2112

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

neuvik

Guest

neuvik

Guest

job1207

Guest

job1207

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

vattas

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page