Next Falcon I launched 'before the end of the year'

http://www.space.com/news/080806-spa...n1-update.html

A timing error and resisdual thrust of the new engine caused the loss of the
vehicle and Scotty's ashes.

I wish them the best of luck!


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"Dale Harris" wrote in message
...
http://www.space.com/news/080806-spa...n1-update.html

A timing error and resisdual thrust of the new engine caused the loss of
the vehicle and Scotty's ashes.

I wish them the best of luck!

I don't think all of his ashes were on the flight; for that reason, maybe
they will try again.

"Dale Harris" wrote:

http://www.space.com/news/080806-spa...n1-update.html

Based on their track record to date, that means sometime in early
2010.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Dale Harris" wrote:

http://www.space.com/news/080806-spa...n1-update.html

Based on their track record to date, that means sometime in early
2010.

At least Space-X is flying *something*. They've also got a few more Falcon
1's either completely built or under construction. They've obviously got a
lot to learn, but they still look like they're getting close. I can't help
but think if they'd stuck with the old first stage engine on this flight,
they would have had a better shot at making orbit.

Even the Saturn V team kept tweaking things like the separation and ullage
motors on the stages. Sometimes the change wasn't good and they reverted it
on the next flight. They got really lucky on more than one flight and those
were guys who'd had decades of experience designing and flying rockets.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Dale Harris" wrote:

http://www.space.com/news/080806-spa...n1-update.html

Based on their track record to date, that means sometime in early
2010.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

*I sure hope this works*!! However. I think too many postings
here reflect an incomplete point of view which could be greatly
remedied by a little outside reading. This would include, Buzz
Aldrin and John Barnes, 'The Return,' (paperback, 2000). I can
see very few of the people here have ever spent one minute in
the kinds of social and industrial environments these space
machines such as Falcon come out of; have ever listened to Elon
Musk and others talk about what they're doing, what sorts of
problems they must overcome, and etc. For a lively and relevant
introduction, 'The Return' looks good to me.

The remedy is read around, learn to recognize not knowing *all*
on the topic, go on from there. I think 'The Return' is an
excellent starting point, but books such as Kranz, 'Failure Is
Not an Option,' Chaikin, A Man On the Moon,' Poynter, The Human
Experiment,' Zubrin, 'The Case for Mars,' DeGroot, 'Dark Side
of the Moon,' Shayler, 'Apollo, the Lost and Forgotten Missions,'
offer a good base to build on if you want to post usefully
here.

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Aug 07]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:04:18 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


At least Space-X is flying *something*. They've also got a few more Falcon
1's either completely built or under construction.

Yes, but it will be a lot cheaper to just dump the satellites
overboard from a boat. Same result.

Brian

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:09:55 GMT, "Martha Adams"
wrote:

*I sure hope this works*!! However. I think too many postings
here reflect an incomplete point of view which could be greatly
remedied by a little outside reading.

"Here, have another cup of Kool-Aid. Pay no attention to that faint
bitter taste..."

Derek's point is totally valid. SpaceX and their Falcon Fanboy Society
told us the same thing after Flight No.2 went splash (and their
fanboys entertained us mightily by trying to explain how Flight No.2
was really a *success*.) The downtime ended up being five months
longer than after Flight No.1 went kablooey.


Brian

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
Derek's point is totally valid. SpaceX and their Falcon Fanboy Society
told us the same thing after Flight No.2 went splash (and their
fanboys entertained us mightily by trying to explain how Flight No.2
was really a *success*.) The downtime ended up being five months
longer than after Flight No.1 went kablooey.

And shuttle naysayers kept saying "one more accident will permanently ground
the shuttle". However, the shuttle is clearly flying post-Columbia, so
they've been proven wrong by history. In that case the shuttle fanboys were
right.

But the shuttle program is coming to an end and it's time to pick a new
horse to bet on. How will Ares I and V do with its billions in development
money compared to Space-X with its much more limited budget? Only time will
tell, but in the meantime, the EELV's keep on flying.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:57:16 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


And shuttle naysayers kept saying "one more accident will permanently ground
the shuttle". However, the shuttle is clearly flying post-Columbia, so
they've been proven wrong by history. In that case the shuttle fanboys were
right.

- The Shuttle fanboys didn't insist that STS-51L and STS-107 were
really successes. SpaceX fanboys did and amazing song and dance about
Flight No.2.

- The Shuttle fanboys could point at a record of 111 successes. Falcon
1 has never succeeded.

- The last rocket to go 0-for-3 was Delta III, which died because of
it. Before that, N-1 also went 0-for-3 and died. The Europa rocket
went 0-4 and vanished from the scene around the same time as N-1.

But this is SpaceX, so we're supposed to look the other way.

But the shuttle program is coming to an end and it's time to pick a new
horse to bet on. How will Ares I and V do with its billions in development
money compared to Space-X with its much more limited budget? Only time will
tell, but in the meantime, the EELV's keep on flying.

I liked the original Stick concept of 4-segments and SSME. Now that
Stick is 100% new, I say kill it and uprate Delta IV-H for a tenth of
the cost. If that is politically impossible, go with DIRECT and at
least give us a more robust and versatile launch vehicle than Ares I
or the behemoth (and still growing!) Ares V.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
Before that, N-1 also went 0-for-3 and died.
0-for-4 actually.

Pat