Get your graphics design services...cheap!
Search Tags:

Paid Advertisement
CheapestDesigns.com
Cheap graphic design services including banners, logos and websites!
TrafficBigDog.com
Effective Internet marketing resources and tools.

Launch Failure of SpaceX Falcon 1 - Flight 3



Uploaded by: spacevidcast
Video Description:
SpaceX had a rough day. After an initial abort on the launch-pad at T-0 seconds they were finally able to get the Falcon 1 rocket in the air only to have the first stage not properly jettison, which caused a total vehicle and cargo loss. No humans were aboard the craft. While this is certainly a disappointment for SpaceX I have no doubt that they will continue forging forward with Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon.


Tags for this video: dragon failure falcon falcon1 flight launch merlin rocket spacex

Find more videos in the "Tech" category
See more videos uploaded by spacevidcast

Related Videos
Sea Launch FailureSea Launch Rocket FailureSpaceX Falcon I Launch 2 3/20/2007
sea-launch-failure.htmlsea-launch-failure.htmlsea-launch-failure.html
EPIC FAILURE!Space X Falcon I - Second LaunchMerlin Hawking
sea-launch-failure.htmlsea-launch-failure.htmlsea-launch-failure.html


Share This Video:       StumbleUpon       del.icio.us       Reddit       digg       Furl       Spurl       Simpy       YahooMyWeb


Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Comments for this video on YouTube
EPIC FAIL. lol ( 3 months ago by Halomainaic1234)
EPIC FAIL. lol
Who are the people ... ( 3 months ago by yagi68)
Who are the people cheering? Are they SpaceX engineers? It looks like they are a bunch of teenagers...
If its a new rocket, why don't they launch a dummy payload until they get a reliable vehicle?
Good luck next time.
Why would NASA ... ( 3 months ago by Jmcenanly)
Why would NASA sabotage the company that had just signed a contract to deliver supplies to the International Space Station during the interim between the retirement of the Shuttle and the introduction of the Orion spacecraft?
It's very well ... ( 3 months ago by jimbux)
It's very well known, that SpaceX hires a bunch of inexperienced "it works on paper" worthless pukes right out of college. Musk is too cheap and shortsighted to hire the correct talent. In reality, he is actually a very stupid and arrogant person.
Um... major ... ( 3 months ago by joshatkins94)
Um... major aerospace companies aren't college! You obviously have a very low opinion of SpaceX. Five years after being created, SpaceX sent a rocket into space (DemoFlight 2). I'm sure that's more than you've done.
It's bad when a ... ( 3 months ago by philkarn)
It's bad when a failure occurs. It's much, much worse when the same failure occurs TWICE, namely the recontact between first and second stages. It happened on the last (second) flight, though it wasn't the cause of that particular failure.
It seems the way they're getting their low launch costs is by scrimping on the detailed engineering analyses and methodical attention to detail that space flight absolutely demands to succeed. This is not a good bargain.
It's not as if this ... ( 3 months ago by philkarn)
It's not as if this were a brand new problem in launcher design, either. There are standard ways, used for decades, to preclude stage recontact. You freeze guidance on both stages before, during and after separation so they remain inertially fixed. You allow plenty of time for the lower stage thrust to decay and the stage to fall away, and you use retro rockets to help.
A recontact nearly occurred on Apollo 15. The launch succeeded, but they made absolutely sure it never happened again.
Well think of it ... ( 2 months ago by Keylimedelight)
Well think of it like this, if your a commercial satellite company the vast majority of your costs are wrapped up in the launches. satellites themselves are not that expensive (R&D yes, the actual sat, no). SpaceX charges less than 1/6 of what NASA does so for your average package to LEO. So if im a company putting something up there im perfectly willing to lose a package or three because if one out of four of my packages makes it i've still saved money.
*written from moms ... ( 2 months ago by Keylimedelight)
*written from moms semen stained basement*
I agree, launches ... ( 2 months ago by philkarn)
I agree, launches are so expensive that it's worth risking at least some kinds of payloads to unproven launchers built "the usual way". But my point was that in "the usual way" there's an almost extreme emphasis on identifying, analyzing and fixing anomalies so they won't happen again. This takes time, money and talent. Lots of it. So a repeat failure is a serious signal that something is very wrong in the organization. A cheap launch is no bargain if the success probability is very low.
Allowances have to ... ( 2 months ago by Keylimedelight)
Allowances have to be made for SpaceX given that they are working with a new infrastructure, technology and economic model. In defence of the repeat failures we could point out the early days of the russian or American space program, plenty of trial and error was involved. also I don't think that 'extreme emphasis on identifying, analyzing and fixing anomalies' is always a good thing. NASA has to because political pressure only comes from failure. Is like any govt bureaucracy, very risk adverse.
I don't agree. ... ( 2 months ago by ApolloWasReal)
I don't agree. Spaceflight is very unforgiving, space hardware is very complex, and margins are tight. Without conservative design and attention to detail your chances of success are very low.
Apollo emphasized fixing anomalies not because of politics but because a reasonable chance of success demanded it. True, the man-rating made it even more demanding. But sloppiness doesn't pay off even with unmanned launchers. Two staging recontacts in two flights was just sloppy.
I could understand ... ( 2 months ago by ApolloWasReal)
I could understand early repeated failures of, say, a rocket turbopump. They push the limits of exotic materials under extremely demanding and hard-to-model operating conditions in a complex device with very little operating margin. So there were repeated turbopump failures even in a major, well-funded project like the Ariane 1.
But you can model staging recontacts with freshman-level physics. Avoiding them is (or should be) just not that hard!
I think they use ... ( 2 months ago by warrenkm)
I think they use explosive bolts for the separation impulse (could be wrong here). The correct amount of impulse was provided but it wasn't sufficient to overcome residual burn from fuel in the manifold.
I think the impulse ... ( 2 months ago by philkarn)
I think the impulse from separation pyros is nil. Linear shaped charges cut through the separation plane and the stages have to pull themselves apart. Usually there are solid fuel retrorockets on the first stage and ullage rockets on the second. They pull the stages apart and settle the second stage propellants.
It always really bothered me to see that cloud suddenly envelop a Saturn V at staging.
Yeah, I was under ... ( 1 month ago by warrenkm)
Yeah, I was under the impression they had done something to combine the two for some reason, probably my prejudice as a reliability engineer (KISS), but I read their statement and they just mentioned that their pusher impulse was correct, without being specific as to how that impulse was provided.
Philkarn - can you ... ( 1 month ago by warrenkm)
Philkarn - can you provide a reference about the GNC freeze on staging? I'd like to read up some more about it. Thanks.
Sure. Google for ... ( 1 month ago by philkarn)
Sure. Google for apollo_09_saturn_v.pdf. I picked it at random. Page 10-10 describes the guidance program. "During the periods just prior to stage cutoff, attitude freeze or chi freeze modes are used..."
PS. The attitude/ ... ( 1 month ago by philkarn)
PS. The attitude/chi freeze applies to 2nd/3rd staging. The first stage is steered with a precalculated yaw/roll/pitch program, and the pitch program is frozen during 1st/2nd staging. So it's really the same thing.
True inertial guidance starts later during 2nd stage burn when the launcher is for all practical purposes in a total vacuum.
Ah, yes, of course ... ( 1 month ago by warrenkm)
Ah, yes, of course I would expect that as any corrections during staging would be messy. I took that as a given. I guess I just needed to read it in context. I'm assuming SpaceX did that as well as it's pretty obvious I think. Thanks again
Apparently it ... ( 1 month ago by philkarn)
Apparently it wasn't obvious to SpaceX. I haven't seen video from this one, but on their last flight there was a very definite impact of the side of the 2nd stage engine with the inside of the first stage fairing caused by the two stages not maintaining fixed attitude during sep. This one appears to have been a recontact in the longitudinal direction.
Watch the last ... ( 1 month ago by warrenkm)
Watch the last successful flight, it seems they still have an issue. It doesn't seem that it's from burn (not that I know!)They staged okay this time, but watch the vehicle pitch up and roll right at staging. This appears to be more of a free body problem - perhaps some mass properties issues coupled with aerodynamic effects (I know, it rarefied there, but at that velocity, I assume there are some aerodynamic effects). Anyway, I still don't believe they've solved the problem.
They have a vehicle ... ( 1 month ago by warrenkm)
They have a vehicle in orbit on their fourth try. Not bad I'd say. I can't even get a good handle on combustion dynamics much less all the other aspects of rocket design. I wish I were an equally worthless puke, perhaps I could start a few million dollar companies and start a company and a team that could do as well. One really needs to work in this business to appreciate the complexity.
ayzun tlga ( 1 month ago by sabucot)
ayzun tlga



Tell a friend:


URL 
Embed Code 


Get your graphics design services...cheap!
._._._._._._._._
We effectively market using TrafficBigDog - Effective Internet Marketing Services