SpaceX Falcon Fails on Third Launch Attempt

The third attempt by the private space launch firm SpaceX to launch
its Falcon 1 rocket into orbit has met with failure. The failure of
the second stage to separate from the first stage after launch seems
to be the cause.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ch.html?cat=15

"Mark R. Whittington" wrote in message
...
The third attempt by the private space launch firm SpaceX to launch
its Falcon 1 rocket into orbit has met with failure. The failure of
the second stage to separate from the first stage after launch seems
to be the cause.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ch.html?cat=15

Very disappointing. Three attempts and still no success. How hard can it be?
After last year's flight I would have thought that a failure would be
further into the flight, not due some dufus seperation cockup. Common guys!
Do we have to wait another year for a another retry? That would spell deep
trouble for Falcon 9 and the NASA COTS contract. I suggest they fix this
fast, and then fly with dummy payloads until they get it working. And keep
some Falcon I's in stock since the basic vehicle seems OK to me.

SpaceX desperately needs a successfull flight to keep its credibillity. And
they need it yesterday!


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

Dale Harris wrote:
"Mark R. Whittington" wrote in message
...
The third attempt by the private space launch firm SpaceX to launch
its Falcon 1 rocket into orbit has met with failure. The failure of
the second stage to separate from the first stage after launch seems
to be the cause.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ch.html?cat=15

Very disappointing. Three attempts and still no success. How hard can it be?
After last year's flight I would have thought that a failure would be
further into the flight, not due some dufus seperation cockup. Common guys!
Do we have to wait another year for a another retry? That would spell deep
trouble for Falcon 9 and the NASA COTS contract.

Again I reiterate, COTS is not a contract, it's an AWARD.

It's a Space Act Agreement. Look it up.

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 21:24:59 +0200, "Dale Harris"
wrote:

And keep
some Falcon I's in stock since the basic vehicle seems OK to me.

Um, you mean aside from its 100% record of dumping perfectly good
satellites in the Pacific?

Brian

Dale Harris wrote:
"Mark R. Whittington" wrote in message
...
The third attempt by the private space launch firm SpaceX to launch
its Falcon 1 rocket into orbit has met with failure. The failure of
the second stage to separate from the first stage after launch seems
to be the cause.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ch.html?cat=15

Very disappointing. Three attempts and still no success. How hard can it be?

Evidently, harder than SpaceX originally thought, and harder than you think.

On Aug 3, 12:24 pm, "Dale Harris" wrote:
"Mark R. Whittington" wrote in ...

The third attempt by the private space launch firm SpaceX to launch
its Falcon 1 rocket into orbit has met with failure. The failure of
the second stage to separate from the first stage after launch seems
to be the cause.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...falcon_1_fails...

Very disappointing. Three attempts and still no success. How hard can it be?
After last year's flight I would have thought that a failure would be
further into the flight, not due some dufus seperation cockup. Common guys!
Do we have to wait another year for a another retry? That would spell deep
trouble for Falcon 9 and the NASA COTS contract. I suggest they fix this
fast, and then fly with dummy payloads until they get it working. And keep
some Falcon I's in stock since the basic vehicle seems OK to me.

SpaceX desperately needs a successfull flight to keep its credibillity. And
they need it yesterday!

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

Yesterday has become yet another dead horse.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Aug 3, 5:43 pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
Dale Harris wrote:
"Mark R. Whittington" wrote in message
...
The third attempt by the private space launch firm SpaceX to launch
its Falcon 1 rocket into orbit has met with failure. The failure of
the second stage to separate from the first stage after launch seems
to be the cause.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...falcon_1_fails...

Very disappointing. Three attempts and still no success. How hard can it be?

Evidently, harder than SpaceX originally thought, and harder than you think.

It's not hard at all, as even China and the likes of India are doing a
whole lot better.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
Dale Harris wrote:
"Mark R. Whittington" wrote in message
...
The third attempt by the private space launch firm SpaceX to launch
its Falcon 1 rocket into orbit has met with failure. The failure of
the second stage to separate from the first stage after launch seems
to be the cause.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ch.html?cat=15

Very disappointing. Three attempts and still no success. How hard can it
be?

Evidently, harder than SpaceX originally thought, and harder than you
think.

As the old cliché says, it IS rocket science. And it's not easy.

I wish SpaceX all the best, but I'm not convinced they can be the ones to
make that "breaththru" a lot seem to be looking for.



--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

On Aug 3, 2:02 pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 21:24:59 +0200, "Dale Harris"

wrote:
And keep
some Falcon I's in stock since the basic vehicle seems OK to me.

Um, you mean aside from its 100% record of dumping perfectly good
satellites in the Pacific?

Brian

Perhaps the “Compost heap of NASA crap” is finally perking, fermenting
and flowing up hill like it should. Perhaps their next Mars mission
should be launched by Falcon 9 or F9 Heavy, thus once having fallen
back into the ocean they’ll have discovered water (salty water none
the less), and if their orbit destination manages to get submerged
enough, they might even discover an entirely new species of complex
life surviving where it’s entirely inhospitable to us mere humans.

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php (fully submersible orbit capable)

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9_heavy.php (bigger submersible payload
capable)

As per usual, rocket powered by our hard earned public loot and NASA’s
perpetual spew of flatulence. To think, all we village idiots have to
do is keep forking out our hard earned loot, and suck it up.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Aug 3, 10:10 am, "Mark R. Whittington"
wrote:
The third attempt by the private space launch firm SpaceX to launch
its Falcon 1 rocket into orbit has met with failure. The failure of
the second stage to separate from the first stage after launch seems
to be the cause.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...falcon_1_fails...

Perhaps the growing “Compost heap of NASA crap” is finally perking,
fermenting and flowing up hill like it should. Perhaps their next
Mars mission should be launched by Falcon 9 or F9 Heavy, thus once
having fallen back into the ocean they’ll have discovered water (salty
water none the less), and if their orbit destination manages to get
submerged deep enough, they might even discover an entirely new
species of complex life surviving where it’s entirely inhospitable to
us mere humans.

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php (fully submersible orbit capable)

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9_heavy.php (bigger submersible payload
capable)

As per usual, rocket powered by our hard earned public loot and NASA’s
perpetual spew of infomercial hype and flatulence. To think, all we
village idiots have to do is keep forking out our hard earned loot,
and then suck it up each time a spendy mission goes for the deep blue
kind of station-keeping orbit.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth