SpaceX Go Boom

[CPMcGraw]

Well, SpaceX is 0 for 3 with their Falcon-1 vehicle. At 140 seconds into the launch, the video feed from the rocket went black, and one of the two webcast "common-taters" said the dredded "A" word: ANOMALY.

Immediately thereafter, the whole webcast went south as someone "pulled the plug", in traditional USSR style...

[DeanHFox]

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com is reporting (from an e-mail they received from Elon Musk, the owner of SpaceX), that the first stage performed fine, but there was a problem during separation of the two stages that made the rocket go boom (technical term, there, eh, Craig?). :)

Y'know, someone needs to fly out to Kwaj and explain CHAD staging to those folks... ;)

Just goes to show, though...this "developing and flying new rockets stuff" is HARD. It's like watching the 50's and 60's attempts by the government & their contractors...but all over again, this time by "private space". They'll get it right, eventually. And we get to see it all, via the Internet, as it happens! It's just too cool for words, even with the failures that happen...

[tbzep]

That worries me. Don't they already have a contract with NASA to supply the ISS after the shuttle goes down?

[dwmzmm]

That worries me. Don't they already have a contract with NASA to supply the ISS after the shuttle goes down?

I think they do, so they're going to feel a lot of pressure to get several successful flights up.
I tried to watch the "live feed" last night and could only get a blank/black screen with no sound. Looks like, in the aftermath of their latest failure, they have some real growing pains
under their belt. Wish them luck on their next attempt.

[CPMcGraw]

That worries me. Don't they already have a contract with NASA to supply the ISS after the shuttle goes down?

They were carrying two NASA payloads on THIS flight... :confused:

What bugs me most about SpaceX, aside from their Soviet-style attitude toward telling the story, is that they are committing themselves to commercial (paid) flights even before getting the bugs worked out of the system. That indicates an unhealthy cockiness and overconfidence. If they don't get a few unpaid test flights under their belt soon, to work out those bugs, their customers are going to go elsewhere.

It's going to be interesting to see if their Falcon-9 booster has similar "anomalies" with its first flights...

[Race58]

What's really bad is that "Gordy" Gordon Cooper (Mercury 7 Astronaut) and "Scotty" James Doohan ( Star Trek) had their ashes on-board and now they are "Lost in Space" :(

See here:
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/technology&id=6018948

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/science/space/03launchweb.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin

[kapton]

A bit more info here:
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=1705&st=360&p=122249&#entry122249

[tbzep]

There are going to be 200 familes that are ticked off at the failure.

[tbzep]

After reading through the links, and some more links, it seems that the first stage was flawless this time. Wikipedia had some information that seemed to come from an insider that saw some video that we didn't get to see. It was pulled pretty fast, but somebody was able to copy and paste it into one of the forums before it was removed. According to the info, the first stage bashed into the second stage.

"The webcast documenting the launch showed via the aft facing onboard camera that the first stage violently recontacted second stage seconds after the separation.[citation needed] Several seconds later major portions of the second stage were torn away with the first stage. The second stage was observed to tumble and propellent covered the camera lens.[citation needed] Shortly thereafter a major explosion was observed and the video signal was lost by the receivers on the ground. Telemetry data continued as the second stage re-entered on a trajectory slightly north of the first stage. The second stage appeared to never ignite."

[Leo]

Just go here http://www.spacex.com/ and click on the picture "FEATURED VIDEO".

It will show the flight. At T+02:52 you can see the first stage ram into the second stage engine.

[billspad]

Just go here http://www.spacex.com/ and click on the picture "FEATURED VIDEO".

It will show the flight. At T+02:52 you can see the first stage ram into the second stage engine.


I get the video from the previous flight.

[Leo]

Hhhmmmm, if that is the case then my bad. I thought it was flight #3 :)

[Shreadvector]

I get the video from the previous flight.

Was there a "previous flight" that lasted through second stage?

Definitely smakced the second stage engine nozzle bell. The payload fairing may also have whacked into the rocket.

[billspad]

Was there a "previous flight" that lasted through second stage?

Definitely smakced the second stage engine nozzle bell. The payload fairing may also have whacked into the rocket.

Yes. On the last flight the second stage engine fired and that's what I saw on the video. From what I've read about this flight the second stage didn't fire.

[kapton]

Yes, the video Leo pointed out is definitely flight 2.

[CPMcGraw]

Was there a "previous flight" that lasted through second stage?

Definitely smakced the second stage engine nozzle bell. The payload fairing may also have whacked into the rocket.

The second demo flight reached over 200 Km, but did not reach the correct orbit, which may be seen as a partial success or partial failure. My thought is, it still didn't do what it was supposed to do, which was to put an object into a specific orbit.

The booster on the second flight came off at an angle instead of a clean straight drag-separation, causing the interstage coupler to hit and drag on the second stage exhaust bell rather hard - enough to put a small dent in it, visible on the footage - knocking the trajectory out of alignment, and causing an edge band on the bell to come apart about 30 seconds into the burn. The second stage also had control problems, which amplified the already-wild gyrations. I think a later analysis said the second stage also shut down prematurely, so it didn't burn long enough to reach the target. The shut down may have been a result of the oscillations due to fuel sloshing (pogo) and starvation.