SpaceX Falcon launch No 4.

Status
Not open for further replies.
3

3488

Guest
<p><strong><font size="2">Hi all,</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">With the recent failure after what appeared to be a picture perfect launch, do you think Elon will press ahead with launch no 4 soon, or will he wait till all facts are known?</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">Three failures out of three attempts does not look good, but it does not appear to be a recurring problem, rather a different problem each time.</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">Would he do better to scrap Falcon & perhaps purchase & modify other launch vehicles with a good track record, i.e Delta 2 (only two failures in 40 years), or perhaps adapt Falcon to embrace known, tried & tested procedures.</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">Or perhaps he's under pressure to deliver quickly from paying customers, hense mistakes are sneaking through? He clearly knows that he has a design that could work, the Merlin's performance was superb, no denying that fact.</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">I know, that I am critical of the private sector as profits come before substance in more ways than one, but is Elon a victim of this? </font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">Elon is certainly trying his very best, but is the commercial nature of the business, forcing him to cut corners?</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">IMO launch no 4 will also end up in the Pacific, because things are being rushed, by external market forces, not because of anything he is doing personally?</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">Andrew Brown.</font></strong></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>
 
A

aphh

Guest
<p>He needs a few seasoned experts to review both the design and procedures. <br /><br />Next launch must work. It doesn't matter whether he has deep pockets or not, failure is not an option in rocket business. It's time to sit down and understand and correct the various problems, that obviously plague this new launch system.</p><p>Even if it takes a year before the next attempt, it's still better than to get forced out of business altogether by bad design or procedures.</p><p>It's a young team and they're having fun building rockets, but now it's time to deliver.&nbsp;</p>
 
S

spacy600

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi all,With the recent failure after what appeared to be a picture perfect launch, do you think Elon will press ahead with launch no 4 soon, or will he wait till all facts are known?Three failures out of three attempts does not look good, but it does not appear to be a recurring problem, rather a different problem each time.Would he do better to scrap Falcon & perhaps purchase & modify other launch vehicles with a good track record, i.e Delta 2 (only two failures in 40 years), or perhaps adapt Falcon to embrace known, tried & tested procedures.Or perhaps he's under pressure to deliver quickly from paying customers, hense mistakes are sneaking through? He clearly knows that he has a design that could work, the Merlin's performance was superb, no denying that fact.I know, that I am critical of the private sector as profits come before substance in more ways than one, but is Elon a victim of this? Elon is certainly trying his very best, but is the commercial nature of the business, forcing him to cut corners?IMO launch no 4 will also end up in the Pacific, because things are being rushed, by external market forces, not because of anything he is doing personally?Andrew Brown. <br /> Posted by 3488</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I have read he has not flown the same rocket twice.</p><p>If true then </p><p>shouldn't he get a working demo first then fix / upgrade one thing at a time?&nbsp;</p>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Would he do better to scrap Falcon & perhaps purchase & modify other launch vehicles with a good track record, i.e Delta 2 (only two failures in 40 years), </DIV></p><p>&nbsp;1.&nbsp; he can't do that.&nbsp; they are not his to modify</p><p>2.&nbsp; His whole concept revolves around inhouse products&nbsp;</p>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi all,With the recent failure after what appeared to be a picture perfect launch, do you think Elon will press ahead with launch no 4 soon, or will he wait till all facts are known?Three failures out of three attempts does not look good, but it does not appear to be a recurring problem, rather a different problem each time.Would he do better to scrap Falcon & perhaps purchase & modify other launch vehicles with a good track record, i.e Delta 2 (only two failures in 40 years), or perhaps adapt Falcon to embrace known, tried & tested procedures.Or perhaps he's under pressure to deliver quickly from paying customers, hense mistakes are sneaking through? He clearly knows that he has a design that could work, the Merlin's performance was superb, no denying that fact.I know, that I am critical of the private sector as profits come before substance in more ways than one, but is Elon a victim of this? Elon is certainly trying his very best, but is the commercial nature of the business, forcing him to cut corners?IMO launch no 4 will also end up in the Pacific, because things are being rushed, by external market forces, not because of anything he is doing personally?Andrew Brown. <br />Posted by 3488</DIV></p><p>In my opinion he is falling into the same trap as others who thought they could dramatically reduce launch costs through a "commercial" approach to development of a rocket.&nbsp; He and others fail to realize a few things:</p><p>1.&nbsp; Launch vehicle development has largely been conducted by private companies, under contract to the government, who have a profit motive and do not add costs unnecessarily.&nbsp; But a large part of the profit is obtained only by producing a launch vehicle THAT WORKS.&nbsp; The contracts contain tremendous mission success incentives.&nbsp; This is appropriate, particularly when the payloads for those vehicles can be worh BILLIONS.</p><p>2.&nbsp; It is actually a bit difficult to overcome gravity and put a payload into orbit.&nbsp; The value of a pound of useful payload in orbit is very high, so the commercial incentive is to reliably put as much payload up as is possible. It is sufficiently difficult to overcome gravity and the commercial reward for a pound of useful payload in orbit is sufficiently high that launch vehicles must not carry any more inert weight than is absolutely necessary.&nbsp; This means that rocket designs do not incorporate very much redundancy and therefore that the systems on the rocket must be extremely reliable.&nbsp; Rockets are a huge system of single-point failure modes.&nbsp; It takes a lot of expertise and experience to make sure that none of those failure modes actually result in a failute.</p><p>3.&nbsp; Commercial design practices generally are such as to permit a far larger failure rate than is remotely acceptable in a rocket.&nbsp; Standard engineering will not produce a reliable rocket and using good commercial design practices for aerospace systems is a prescription for disaster.</p><p>4.&nbsp; Space-X failures are a result of applying commercial design practices and commercial quality control in a situation where it is simply inappropriate to do so.&nbsp; You can't build a space launcher the same way you build a car, even a high-performance race car.&nbsp; Rocket designers are very conservative in making changes in design philosophy or in selecting technologies without either a proven track record or a lot of testing and understanding of all the operating principles, materials, manufacturing techniques and quality assurance methods.</p><p>5.&nbsp; There are very good reasons for avoiding explosive bolts, pull testing every lot of bolts used, conducting N-ray tests of ordnance lines, testing metal components with x-ray, mag particle, or dye penetrant, .......</p><p>6.&nbsp; All components are usually subjected to a detailed analysis and a full report written.&nbsp; All analyses are reviewed several times and often duplicated by different teams using somewhat different and independent methods.&nbsp; Several rigorous design reviews are held during development and all aspects of the design are put through the ringer by a team of independent experts.</p><p>7.&nbsp; The manufacturing steps in each component are inspected and documented all the way through the process, and each critical step is individually signed off in a log book.&nbsp; Any discrepancy between the as-designed and as-manufactured part is reviewed, analyzed and useage determined by engineering with personal sign-off by the responsible engineer, and that disposition documented. All the data for all components are reviewed by a team of experts, and often more than one team, before it is used on a flight.</p><p>The history of trying to shortcut the rigor of this process is failures on the test stand or in flight and commercial failure.&nbsp; The single most important trait of a launch system is reliability.&nbsp; It is far far more important than launch cost.&nbsp; An unreliable vehicle incurs not only cost of failure but a ruinous cost to the payload owner for launch insurance.&nbsp;</p><p>NASA, under Dan Goldin tried "faster, better, cheaper" by cutting corners,&nbsp;and met with disaster.&nbsp; That is what brought you Mars Pathfinder.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
P

phaze

Guest
<p>I'm not sure it's the approach I'd want a designer to take if I was an astronaut sitting on top... but, if the actual costs of multiple failed rockets is less than or equal to another more expensive approach (assuming the end results are equal)....</p><p>Do the number of failures really matter?</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
A

aphh

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not sure it's the approach I'd want a designer to take if I was an astronaut sitting on top... but, if the actual costs of multiple failed rockets is less than or equal to another more expensive approach (assuming the end results are equal)....Do the number of failures really matter?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by phaze</DIV></p><p>Flight 3 was not just a test flight anymore. There was payload from paying customers, that all hoped for a good delivery.</p><p>This means, that they had already entered production mode, where failure results in loss of not only the rocket, but the payload as well.</p><p>I remember the video of the Flight 2, where the less than perfect separation of stages caused oscillation to the upper stage, that the GNC couldn't correct thus preventing the rocket from reaching orbital velocity.</p><p>I remember Elon saying, that it was not a big issue, because the less than perfect separation didn't hurt the upper stage nozzle. &nbsp; &nbsp;</p>
 
P

phaze

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Flight 3 was not just a test flight anymore. There was payload from paying customers, that all hoped for a good delivery.This means, that they had already entered production mode, where failure results in loss of not only the rocket, but the payload as well.I remember the video of the Flight 2, where the less than perfect separation of stages caused oscillation to the upper stage, that the GNC couldn't correct thus preventing the rocket from reaching orbital velocity.I remember Elon saying, that it was not a big issue, because the less than perfect separation didn't hurt the upper stage nozzle. &nbsp; &nbsp; <br />Posted by aphh</DIV><br /><br />I'm not arguing that the process is complete.&nbsp; Isn't every launch a test?&nbsp; If a payload launch fails, then there is a cost.</p><p>What I'm saying is that if they reach a comparable level of reliability with their method, as opposed to a more expensive and exhaustive approach - I don't see how it matters.&nbsp; If their approach ends up being more costly and less efficient, then I would agree it is the wrong method.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not arguing that the process is complete.&nbsp; Isn't every launch a test?&nbsp; If a payload launch fails, then there is a cost.What I'm saying is that if they reach a comparable level of reliability with their method, as opposed to a more expensive and exhaustive approach - I don't see how it matters.&nbsp; If their approach ends up being more costly and less efficient, then I would agree it is the wrong method.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by phaze</DIV></p><p>No every launch is not a test, or at least is not supposed to be.&nbsp; Failures in flight, particularly with real payloads, are failures of the design and production team as much as of the specific vehicle.&nbsp; Their approach is alreay more costly and less efficient than performing sound engineering design and analysis before commiting to hardware.&nbsp; Build 'm and bust 'em rocket development wient out with the early Minuteman.&nbsp; It is inefficient, costly, and shows rank amateurism on the part of the organization involved.</p><p>Sound design, analysis, and ground testing is far more efficient than a series of full-scale flight failures.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
<p><font size="2">The failure of flight three damaged the moral of a significant fraction of the cheering section. The only thing that can bring that confidence back would be a quick & successful launch #4.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
<font face="Arial" size="2"><font face="Arial" size="2">September: RazakSAT, cubesats<br /></font></font><font size="2"><font face="Arial">launcher: Falcon 1<br />launch site: Reagan Test Site, Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands<br />mission: </font><br /></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
 
N

nimbus

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>. There are two failure investigations in process, one internal and one external, but SpaceX doesn&rsquo;t plan to wait until those reviews are complete before proceeding with Flight 4. &nbsp;<br /> Posted by boris1961</DIV>I never minded SpaceX's unheeding pace to reach orbit asap... But that right there doesn't sound right.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

spacelifejunkie

Guest
<p>I'm not a rocket scientist so can get some help from the experts?&nbsp; I realize that LOTS of things can potentially go wrong on any given launch.&nbsp; But...Based on&nbsp;the three flights so far, what are the most likely possible new failure situations that SpaceX may encounter? &nbsp;For instance, from my amateur eye, it appears as though the Merlin engine is flawless.&nbsp; A Merlin failure would suprise me.&nbsp; I may be wrong but assuming all the problems so far are as improved as possible (rusty nuts, slosh baffles, separation timing) what else is most likely to fail?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>SLJ</p>
 
N

nimbus

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not a rocket scientist so can get some help from the experts?&nbsp; I realize that LOTS of things can potentially go wrong on any given launch.&nbsp; But...Based on&nbsp;the three flights so far, what are the most likely possible new failure situations that SpaceX may encounter? &nbsp;For instance, from my amateur eye, it appears as though the Merlin engine is flawless.&nbsp; A Merlin failure would suprise me.&nbsp; I may be wrong but assuming all the problems so far are as improved as possible (rusty nuts, slosh baffles, separation timing) what else is most likely to fail?&nbsp;SLJ <br /> Posted by spacelifejunkie</DIV><br />Doctor Rocket is one of those experts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
<p><font size="2">Has anyone heard an update on Launch 4? In a&nbsp;"The Space Review" article this week,&nbsp;Gwynne Shotwell, vice president of business development at SpaceX, said, there is a &ldquo;very narrow&rdquo; launch window in September, and another in late October. &ldquo;So look for us to get back to flight as quickly as we can.&rdquo; But I haven't been able to find anymore news on Flight 4.</font></p><p><font size="2">edit; Link to the article.</font> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
 
B

Bytor_YYZ

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Would he do better to scrap Falcon & perhaps purchase & modify other launch vehicles with a good track record, i.e Delta 2 (only two failures in 40 years),<br /> Posted by 3488</DIV></p><p>What would be the point of this?&nbsp; Modify for what purpose? ULA isn't going to sell Deltas to spacex</p><p>He wants to build his own. </p>
 
T

tanstaafl76

Guest
<p>&nbsp;</p><p>I read somewhere today that the current date for Flight 4 is November which may slip to December.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
<p><font size="2"><font size="2">Next Falcon I launch planned within 2 weeks</font></font></p><p><font size="2" color="#000000">[Theo Pirard] who attended a luncheon Thursday at the Euroconsult Space Business Week event in Paris and heard a brief speech by Elon Musk. Musk said that they plan to carry out the next Falcon I launch in about 2 weeks. It will not have a payload. The fifth Falcon I launch would follow in January and it would orbit the Malaysian Razakzsat spacecraft.<br /></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
 
S

shuttle_guy

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Next Falcon I launch planned within 2 weeks[Theo Pirard] who attended a luncheon Thursday at the Euroconsult Space Business Week event in Paris and heard a brief speech by Elon Musk. Musk said that they plan to carry out the next Falcon I launch in about 2 weeks. It will not have a payload. The fifth Falcon I launch would follow in January and it would orbit the Malaysian Razakzsat spacecraft. <br />Posted by boris1961</DIV></p><p>I wish them good luck.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
<p><font size="2" color="#000000"><font size="2" color="#000000">SpaceX Falcon 1 Flight 4 Almost Ready For Launch</font></font></p><p><font size="2" color="#000000">SpaceX is preparing for their next test flight of their Falcon 1 rocket from Kwajalein in the Pacific. This flight was added to the launch manifest after the failure of flight 3 back in August. Diane Murphy, SpaceX&rsquo; Vice President for Marketing and Communications stated &bdquo;We will actually be launching that [Falcon 1] for the fourth time probably within two weeks&ldquo; during AIAA Space 2008 Conference in San Diego from September 9-11.</font></p><p><font size="2" color="#000000">The fourth rocket was delivered to Kwajalein in early September. The launch now is only possible despite the failure in August because the error can be solved by a changed flight program. </font></p><p><font size="2" color="#000000">During stage separation in flight 3, the two stages recontacted which caused the failure. The reason was the use of the new regeneratively cooled Merlin 1C engine. The residual propellants in the cooling channels produced a small thrust after the separation bolts were fired that was high enough to overcome the separation impulse. By changing the separation timing SpaceX hopes that they will solve this problem.</font></p><p><font size="2" color="#000000">In case flight 4 succeeds, the first operational flight with Malaysia&rsquo;s RazakSat will happen still this year. RazakSat will validate technologies for a Near Equatorial Orbit remote sensing mini-satellite system to acquire medium high-resolution images.</font></p><p><font size="2" color="#000000">A successful flight 4 also clears the way for the maiden launch of the much larger Falcon 9 . Delivery of this 333 tonnes heavy rocket is scheduled for December 2008. SpaceX received an Operational License for launch complex SLC-40 at Cape Canaveral in early September.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
<p class="style3 style11" align="left"><span class="style12">Flight 4 of Falcon 1<br /></span> </p><div><span class="hr1"> <hr /> </span> <p class="style3">Just got this in my email & now it's up on their site;</p><div>http://spacex.com/updates.php</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div><strong>Quote:&nbsp;</strong></div><p><strong class="blue smallText">Posted September 19, 2008 </strong></p> <p><strong> Flight 4 of Falcon 1 </strong></p><p class="style3">As mentioned in my update last month, we do expect to conduct a launch countdown in late September &ndash; as scheduled. </p> <p class="style3">Having said that, it is still possible that we encounter an issue that needs to be investigated, which would delay launch until the next available window in late October. <font color="#800000"><strong>If preparations go smoothly, we will conduct a static fire on Saturday and launch sometime between Tuesday and Thursday (California time).</strong></font> </p> <p class="style3">The SpaceX team worked hard to make this launch window, but we also took the time to review data from Flight 3 in detail. In addition to us reviewing the data, we had several outside experts check the data and conclusions. No flight critical problems were found apart from the thrust transient issue. </p> <p class="style3">Flight 5 production is well underway with an expected January completion date, Flight 6 parts are on order and Flight 7 production will begin early next year. We are now in steady state production of Falcon 1 at a rate of one vehicle every four months, which we will probably step up to one vehicle every two to three months in 2010. </p> <p class="style3">&mdash;Elon&mdash; </p></div> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
3

3488

Guest
<p><font size="2"><strong>Hi docm,</strong></font></p><p><font size="2"><strong>It does seem pretty soon after the third attempt, but if they think they have the solution, then why not, but he must not try & rush, lose the fourth one into the Pacific & scare off his customers. But if Elon does successfully launch this time, then I think his longer term plans should proceed, but perhaps hold off with Dragon, till he is sure that the Falcon is reliable, over several launches.</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>
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
<p><font size="2">It was such a letdown to see Flight 3 end in failure I'm afraid I really did lose hope for a few days. I can't truly say I've returned to my starry eyed optimism, but I sure am hoping for a quick & successful launch. </font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
<p><font size="2">Take a look at the background of this pic. It's just absolutely magnificent.&nbsp;</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>www.spacex.com/00Graphics/f1%20flight%204_SM.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="640" height="422" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts