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

[job1207]

<p>Rutan's plan is to go to LEO. He thinks that it can be done along the lines of what Musk is doing, except that Rutan is an engineer with a track record, and Musk is a computer scientist. So we will have to see. </p><p>Rutan did insinuate that all other companies trying to go to LEO would go out of business. He said that a couple of years ago.&nbsp;</p><p>Finally, IF that small problem was the only problem left to find on the Falcon 1 then the next one will fly, and this conversation is moot.&nbsp; </p>

 

[job1207]

<p>Rutan's plan is to go to LEO. He thinks that it can be done along the lines of what Musk is doing, except that Rutan is an engineer with a track record, and Musk is a computer scientist. So we will have to see. </p><p>Rutan did insinuate that all other companies trying to go to LEO would go out of business. He said that a couple of years ago.&nbsp;</p><p>Finally, IF that small problem was the only problem left to find on the Falcon 1 then the next one will fly, and this conversation is moot.&nbsp; </p>

 

[docm]

<p>IMO Rutan's orbital project would likely follow the design he did for T/Space - the CXV.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

<p>IMO Rutan's orbital project would likely follow the design he did for T/Space - the CXV.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The cost of a rocket is a relatively small piece of the launch costs for sophisticated satellites.&nbsp; The satellite typically costs more than the launch and returns a value much greater than its cost.&nbsp; Launch insurance is a big piece of the cost.&nbsp; A cheap unreliable rocket is not economical.&nbsp; An expensive and highly reliable launch vehicle has lower cost to the customer.I am happy to hear that you know what Space X is doing.&nbsp; They don't appear to know what they are doing.&nbsp; It is good that someone has figured it out.We are long past the days where rockets either need or should be flying while the bugs are worked out.&nbsp; That ought to be done on the ground. And repeating past mistakes is simply not acceptable practice any longer.&nbsp; We don't accept a bunch of failures in the development of airplanes any more either.&nbsp; The kinks are worked out on the ground with computer models.There is a big difference between flying an airplane when one of a large and proven fleet crashes and flying a developmental rocket to diagnose and fix inherent design problems.&nbsp; The very fact that these problems have repeatedly shown up only in flights is proof that the engineers at Space X do not have an adequate understanding of their own design.&nbsp; That is the real problem, more so than the simple fact of the failures.&nbsp; Flying to find failures is an amateur approach.&nbsp; Competent engineering organizations do not tolerate such nonsense.&nbsp; The more so since the problems involved have been seen before and are predictable and avoidable.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />But these are test flights...the prupose of which is to find problems that have been missed. <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'>The cost of a rocket is a relatively small piece of the launch costs for sophisticated satellites.&nbsp; The satellite typically costs more than the launch and returns a value much greater than its cost.&nbsp; Launch insurance is a big piece of the cost.&nbsp; A cheap unreliable rocket is not economical.&nbsp; An expensive and highly reliable launch vehicle has lower cost to the customer.I am happy to hear that you know what Space X is doing.&nbsp; They don't appear to know what they are doing.&nbsp; It is good that someone has figured it out.We are long past the days where rockets either need or should be flying while the bugs are worked out.&nbsp; That ought to be done on the ground. And repeating past mistakes is simply not acceptable practice any longer.&nbsp; We don't accept a bunch of failures in the development of airplanes any more either.&nbsp; The kinks are worked out on the ground with computer models.There is a big difference between flying an airplane when one of a large and proven fleet crashes and flying a developmental rocket to diagnose and fix inherent design problems.&nbsp; The very fact that these problems have repeatedly shown up only in flights is proof that the engineers at Space X do not have an adequate understanding of their own design.&nbsp; That is the real problem, more so than the simple fact of the failures.&nbsp; Flying to find failures is an amateur approach.&nbsp; Competent engineering organizations do not tolerate such nonsense.&nbsp; The more so since the problems involved have been seen before and are predictable and avoidable.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />But these are test flights...the prupose of which is to find problems that have been missed. <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>

 

[job1207]

<p>I agree. Although, as Griffin noted at the time, those plans were only, or mostly, on paper. That is why his group did not get the COTS contract. Other groups were further along. It is a mystery though, since Rutan has an excellent track record. That should have counted for quite a bit. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[job1207]

<p>I agree. Although, as Griffin noted at the time, those plans were only, or mostly, on paper. That is why his group did not get the COTS contract. Other groups were further along. It is a mystery though, since Rutan has an excellent track record. That should have counted for quite a bit. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[Bytor_YYZ]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>1.&nbsp; That is why his group did not get the COTS contract. Other groups were further along. </p><p>2.It is a mystery though, since Rutan has an excellent track record. That should have counted for quite a bit. &nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by job1207</DIV></p><p>1.&nbsp; Rutan did not submit a proposal.&nbsp; He was only sub for t/space</p><p>2.&nbsp; his track record does not include orbital flight nor rocket engines&nbsp;</p>

 

[Bytor_YYZ]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>1.&nbsp; That is why his group did not get the COTS contract. Other groups were further along. </p><p>2.It is a mystery though, since Rutan has an excellent track record. That should have counted for quite a bit. &nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by job1207</DIV></p><p>1.&nbsp; Rutan did not submit a proposal.&nbsp; He was only sub for t/space</p><p>2.&nbsp; his track record does not include orbital flight nor rocket engines&nbsp;</p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But these are test flights...the prupose of which is to find problems that have been missed. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>These are demonstration flights, the purpose of which is to confirm that work done in developing the design was adequate and to show that the system works as anticipated.&nbsp; There is a some line between doing tests to confirm a design that has been adequately reviewed and analyzed and an experiment that is underatken to "see if it works".&nbsp; It is always possible to be surprised, but one ought to be a bit embarassed when it happens.&nbsp; And when it happens repeatedly one ought to be mortified. Space X has had too many obvious problems to be let off the hook.</p><p>Largely this is the difference between how professionals operate and how amateurs operate.&nbsp; Space X is looking like a bunch of rank amateurs.&nbsp; Remember&nbsp;flight attempt 3 was the second instance of recontact damage during stage separation.&nbsp; There should not have even been a first instance for such a well-known issue.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But these are test flights...the prupose of which is to find problems that have been missed. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>These are demonstration flights, the purpose of which is to confirm that work done in developing the design was adequate and to show that the system works as anticipated.&nbsp; There is a some line between doing tests to confirm a design that has been adequately reviewed and analyzed and an experiment that is underatken to "see if it works".&nbsp; It is always possible to be surprised, but one ought to be a bit embarassed when it happens.&nbsp; And when it happens repeatedly one ought to be mortified. Space X has had too many obvious problems to be let off the hook.</p><p>Largely this is the difference between how professionals operate and how amateurs operate.&nbsp; Space X is looking like a bunch of rank amateurs.&nbsp; Remember&nbsp;flight attempt 3 was the second instance of recontact damage during stage separation.&nbsp; There should not have even been a first instance for such a well-known issue.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gawin]

<p>I was just wondering if they could solve the timing problem with something simple like the mechanism used in a ******** bomb? Just some fins that deploy after sep. that cause enough drag to pull the stage away from the other.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Im not critisizing any one of the spaceX team but would like some feed back from you guys who know more about rocket science that i do And i am a firm believer in KISS </p>

 

[gawin]

<p>I was just wondering if they could solve the timing problem with something simple like the mechanism used in a ******** bomb? Just some fins that deploy after sep. that cause enough drag to pull the stage away from the other.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Im not critisizing any one of the spaceX team but would like some feed back from you guys who know more about rocket science that i do And i am a firm believer in KISS </p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was just wondering if they could solve the timing problem with something simple like the mechanism used in a ******** bomb? Just some fins that deploy after sep. that cause enough drag to pull the stage away from the other.&nbsp;Im not critisizing any one of the spaceX team but would like some feed back from you guys who know more about rocket science that i do And i am a firm believer in KISS <br />Posted by gawin</DIV></p><p>Better than solving the timing problem is triggering the staging event based on thrust from the lower stage.&nbsp;You need&nbsp;to make sure that the lower stage is producing essentially no thrust. &nbsp;That can be done fairly easily with accelerometers or pressure gages.&nbsp; If the lower stage is non-propulsive you should not need fins to create extra drag.&nbsp; Sometimes some additional force in the form of springs or other devices is sometimes used to push the stages apart, but you don't necessarily need that either.&nbsp; The basic issue is making sure that the lower stage has stopped pushing so that it does not&nbsp;recontact the upper stage after separation.</p><p>The mechanism in a ******** bomb is quite different and is based on fusing technology plus use of data from acceleration sensors.&nbsp; This problem does not require anything either that rugged or that sophisticated.</p><p>It is not a particularly difficult problem to solve, once the issues are recognized, or at least it should not be difficult.&nbsp; There are&nbsp;several proven solutions to reliable staging.&nbsp; But it does take attention to detail and it can require some fairly sophisticated computational fluid dynamics -- stuff well known in the industry.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was just wondering if they could solve the timing problem with something simple like the mechanism used in a ******** bomb? Just some fins that deploy after sep. that cause enough drag to pull the stage away from the other.&nbsp;Im not critisizing any one of the spaceX team but would like some feed back from you guys who know more about rocket science that i do And i am a firm believer in KISS <br />Posted by gawin</DIV></p><p>Better than solving the timing problem is triggering the staging event based on thrust from the lower stage.&nbsp;You need&nbsp;to make sure that the lower stage is producing essentially no thrust. &nbsp;That can be done fairly easily with accelerometers or pressure gages.&nbsp; If the lower stage is non-propulsive you should not need fins to create extra drag.&nbsp; Sometimes some additional force in the form of springs or other devices is sometimes used to push the stages apart, but you don't necessarily need that either.&nbsp; The basic issue is making sure that the lower stage has stopped pushing so that it does not&nbsp;recontact the upper stage after separation.</p><p>The mechanism in a ******** bomb is quite different and is based on fusing technology plus use of data from acceleration sensors.&nbsp; This problem does not require anything either that rugged or that sophisticated.</p><p>It is not a particularly difficult problem to solve, once the issues are recognized, or at least it should not be difficult.&nbsp; There are&nbsp;several proven solutions to reliable staging.&nbsp; But it does take attention to detail and it can require some fairly sophisticated computational fluid dynamics -- stuff well known in the industry.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Bytor_YYZ]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was just wondering if they could solve the timing problem with something simple like the mechanism used in a ******** bomb? Just some fins that deploy after sep. that cause enough drag to pull the stage away from the other.&nbsp;Im not critisizing any one of the spaceX team but would like some feed back from you guys who know more about rocket science that i do And i am a firm believer in KISS <br /> Posted by gawin</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>That wouldn't KISS.&nbsp; It would add complexity.&nbsp; All that is needed it a change in the software, to increase the delay.&nbsp;</p><p> Also the air density is too low for drag devices. &nbsp; </p>

 

[Bytor_YYZ]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was just wondering if they could solve the timing problem with something simple like the mechanism used in a ******** bomb? Just some fins that deploy after sep. that cause enough drag to pull the stage away from the other.&nbsp;Im not critisizing any one of the spaceX team but would like some feed back from you guys who know more about rocket science that i do And i am a firm believer in KISS <br /> Posted by gawin</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>That wouldn't KISS.&nbsp; It would add complexity.&nbsp; All that is needed it a change in the software, to increase the delay.&nbsp;</p><p> Also the air density is too low for drag devices. &nbsp; </p>

 

[rocketscientist327]

<p>The hate and vitriol here against Space X is pretty good.&nbsp;&nbsp;I do wish SpaceX had better success,&nbsp;even with these failures, I think that SpaceX is close to cracking the nut.&nbsp; And when they do, it is going to be a new day in the space business.</p><p>I am&nbsp;amazed that while we waste billions of&nbsp;tax dollars are Aries I and V, those very same people&nbsp;put things together that seem more viable&nbsp;such as Direct 2.0 and Aries H.&nbsp; Meanwhile, the Aries 1 Capsule&nbsp;continues to shrink and become a shadow of what&nbsp;was once&nbsp;envisioned.</p><p>To be clear, I am not anti-NASA or anti-ULA, I think they play a key role in our space program, but I do think they are fat and need to be "right sized" as with every other part of our government.</p><p>Respectfully,</p><p>Rocket Scientist 327&nbsp;</p>

 

[rocketscientist327]

<p>The hate and vitriol here against Space X is pretty good.&nbsp;&nbsp;I do wish SpaceX had better success,&nbsp;even with these failures, I think that SpaceX is close to cracking the nut.&nbsp; And when they do, it is going to be a new day in the space business.</p><p>I am&nbsp;amazed that while we waste billions of&nbsp;tax dollars are Aries I and V, those very same people&nbsp;put things together that seem more viable&nbsp;such as Direct 2.0 and Aries H.&nbsp; Meanwhile, the Aries 1 Capsule&nbsp;continues to shrink and become a shadow of what&nbsp;was once&nbsp;envisioned.</p><p>To be clear, I am not anti-NASA or anti-ULA, I think they play a key role in our space program, but I do think they are fat and need to be "right sized" as with every other part of our government.</p><p>Respectfully,</p><p>Rocket Scientist 327&nbsp;</p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The hate and vitriol here against Space X is pretty good.&nbsp;&nbsp;I do wish SpaceX had better success,&nbsp;even with these failures, I think that SpaceX is close to cracking the nut.&nbsp; And when they do, it is going to be a new day in the space business.I am&nbsp;amazed that while we waste billions of&nbsp;tax dollars are Aries I and V, those very same people&nbsp;put things together that seem more viable&nbsp;such as Direct 2.0 and Aries H.&nbsp; Meanwhile, the Aries 1 Capsule&nbsp;continues to shrink and become a shadow of what&nbsp;was once&nbsp;envisioned.To be clear, I am not anti-NASA or anti-ULA, I think they play a key role in our space program, but I do think they are fat and need to be "right sized" as with every other part of our government.Respectfully,Rocket Scientist 327&nbsp; <br />Posted by rocketscientist327</DIV></p><p>There is no hate or vitriol.&nbsp;&nbsp; Space X is a lovable bunch.&nbsp; They just aren't very good rocket engineers.</p><p>I agree that NASA could use a good shake-up.&nbsp; I think that they are looking internally at how they do business and may take care of some of their problems themselves. We'll see.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The hate and vitriol here against Space X is pretty good.&nbsp;&nbsp;I do wish SpaceX had better success,&nbsp;even with these failures, I think that SpaceX is close to cracking the nut.&nbsp; And when they do, it is going to be a new day in the space business.I am&nbsp;amazed that while we waste billions of&nbsp;tax dollars are Aries I and V, those very same people&nbsp;put things together that seem more viable&nbsp;such as Direct 2.0 and Aries H.&nbsp; Meanwhile, the Aries 1 Capsule&nbsp;continues to shrink and become a shadow of what&nbsp;was once&nbsp;envisioned.To be clear, I am not anti-NASA or anti-ULA, I think they play a key role in our space program, but I do think they are fat and need to be "right sized" as with every other part of our government.Respectfully,Rocket Scientist 327&nbsp; <br />Posted by rocketscientist327</DIV></p><p>There is no hate or vitriol.&nbsp;&nbsp; Space X is a lovable bunch.&nbsp; They just aren't very good rocket engineers.</p><p>I agree that NASA could use a good shake-up.&nbsp; I think that they are looking internally at how they do business and may take care of some of their problems themselves. We'll see.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p>The problem, as I see it, is that repeated failures will eventually make it harder for each new kid on the block to convince a paying customer to buy their ride/product/service, which hinders investment in the private Space 2.0.</p><p>Hence, I'm hoping that flight 4 finally orbits something. </p>

 

[aphh]

<p>The problem, as I see it, is that repeated failures will eventually make it harder for each new kid on the block to convince a paying customer to buy their ride/product/service, which hinders investment in the private Space 2.0.</p><p>Hence, I'm hoping that flight 4 finally orbits something. </p>

 

[DrRocket]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The problem, as I see it, is that repeated failures will eventually make it harder for each new kid on the block to convince a paying customer to buy their ride/product/service, which hinders investment in the private Space 2.0.Hence, I'm hoping that flight 4 finally orbits something. <br />Posted by aphh</DIV><br />&nbsp;Precisely <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>