Good luck, Falcon 1

And this is supposedly the ultra best of our supposedly private fly-by-
rocket expertise that we have to offer. Good thing for their job
security that it was directly and indirectly public funded.

Pink slips anyone?

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth


Damon Hill wrote:
"Alan Erskine" wrote in news:UD9lk.25133
:

Even though I can't see the launch, all the very best.




Looks like a launch failure.

There was visible roll oscillation after the first minute, but
during first stage operation. Video went off and SpaceX's
announcers don't have a clue.

We'll have to wait for the failure analysis, but I'm guessing
there was a guidance system problem from the oscillations.

--Damon

wrote:
Watching the vid of the Ist launch attempt,(haven't got to Launch 2
yet,I'm on dial up etc) seems like there was a party going on in the
background...!! Guess they are being just too "gung ho".......Maybe
the mystery investor is Bill Gates,who might "give" 'em a few
Gidzillions .................? Anyway,what a crying
shame.......................


Back in the 1950's three launch failures in a row on a new booster or
missile on its first flights was almost expected; but back then they had
pretty much unlimited funding also.
Anyway, they seem bound and determined to launch their other two Falcon
1s... but if those also flop, their reputation is going to be completely
shot.

Pat

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 00:15:01 -0500, Damon Hill
wrote:

(Scott Stevenson) wrote in
:


At about T +4 minutes, you can start to see some oscillation of the
second stage engine bell--it's making small clockwise circles at just
under one rev per second. They didn't seem to get much faster, but
the oscillations certainly got bigger during the remainder of the
flight.

Also, I'm certainly no expert, but at first stage separation, there
seemed to be a lot of yaw in the rocket before the second stage lit.
I don't know if the first stage didn't separate cleanly, or what, but
it just looked odd.

You must have been looking at video of the second launch last year. In
that case, the separation was "dirty" and knocked the upper stage
off-attitude before guidance reasserted control.

On this, the third launch attempt, it was stated that the two
stages completely failed to separate at all, ending the mission. While
I definitely saw roll oscillation during ascent, it was stated that
first stage operation was 'normal' right up to main engine shutdown.
The shutdown was not shown on the video feed, which was apparently
delayed-broadcast.

Ah, the live broadcast, and grabbed what I thought was the correct
video.

It sounds like I had the right diagnosis, but the wrong patient :-)

take care,
Scott

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 17:32:14 GMT,
(Scott Stevenson) wrote:

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 00:15:01 -0500, Damon Hill
wrote:

(Scott Stevenson) wrote in
t:


At about T +4 minutes, you can start to see some oscillation of the
second stage engine bell--it's making small clockwise circles at just
under one rev per second. They didn't seem to get much faster, but
the oscillations certainly got bigger during the remainder of the
flight.

Also, I'm certainly no expert, but at first stage separation, there
seemed to be a lot of yaw in the rocket before the second stage lit.
I don't know if the first stage didn't separate cleanly, or what, but
it just looked odd.

You must have been looking at video of the second launch last year. In
that case, the separation was "dirty" and knocked the upper stage
off-attitude before guidance reasserted control.

On this, the third launch attempt, it was stated that the two
stages completely failed to separate at all, ending the mission. While
I definitely saw roll oscillation during ascent, it was stated that
first stage operation was 'normal' right up to main engine shutdown.
The shutdown was not shown on the video feed, which was apparently
delayed-broadcast.

Ah, the live broadcast, and grabbed what I thought was the correct
video.

SB "Ah, I missed the live broadcast"

I blame fumes from the car wax I'm using...

It sounds like I had the right diagnosis, but the wrong patient :-)

take care,
Scott

In article
tatelephone, Pat
Flannery wrote:

Anyway, the ashes of Scotty and Gordon Cooper now lie in a watery grave,
along with those of 206 other people.

The headline will read "208 Dead in Rocket Failure".

Better luck next time. Crash and learn.

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)

David M. Palmer wrote:

Anyway, the ashes of Scotty and Gordon Cooper now lie in a watery grave,
along with those of 206 other people.


The headline will read "208 Dead in Rocket Failure".

Better luck next time. Crash and learn.


Last time I checked, 208 minus 2 leaves 206 other people.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

Last time I checked, 208 minus 2 leaves 206 other people.

Now I realize what you're driving at, minus a smiley, friend.
But you do not seem one of the body of Landru, do you, friend?
Herbert!
Liberal Lawyer, come to me! :-D

Pat

On Aug 4, 1:11*pm, "David M. Palmer" wrote:

The headline will read "208 Dead in Rocket Failure".

"We've got guys down in our photo labs working through the night to
put together a genuine photograph."

Neil Gerace wrote:
The headline will read "208 Dead in Rocket Failure".


"We've got guys down in our photo labs working through the night to
put together a genuine photograph."


Seriously, I imagine the family's of some of the dead are none-too-keen
on the idea that their loved ones are now in the depths of the Pacific
rather than the depths of space.
On the other hand if the ashes are sealed in some sort of lightweight
containers, they may be bobbing around out there somewhere and may wash
up on a beach someday.

Pat

It won't console anyone, but fewer people have been to the bottom of
the ocean than have been into space.