Falcon Sir Lauch-A-Lot?

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:01:20 -0500, Neil Gerace wrote
(in article ):


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Well, if nothing else, it's showing the on-time launch reliability
demonstrated by the Shuttle in a privately funded booster.
I still don't think that pre-launch test firing of a engine with an
ablative combustion chamber lining is a good idea.

Whence can the video be downloaded (non-streaming would be best)?



Here you go, Neil:

http://www.spacex.com/video_gallery.php

--
You can run on for a long time,
Sooner or later, God'll cut you down.
~Johnny Cash

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:54:47 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

A fairly good kind of failure to have, if you must have a failure, but
it was a failure.

I disagree. I don't think it makes sense to look at it in such a
binary fashion.

Funny how the Boeing detractors didn't feel that way about Delta
IV-Heavy demo. I guess it's okay to botch a launch as long as it is in
the name of lowering launch costs.

I think there were much higher Delta IV-Heavy demo expectations because of
the high degree of commonality in hardware with other Delta IV models.
Delta IV-Heavy wasn't a brand new vehicle, it was an evolution of an
existing vehicle produced by a company that's been in the launch business
for decades. Naturally expectations were higher for Delta IV-Heavy.

Falcon 1 No.2 was botched. One can sing, dance and spin all one wants.
But it failed. SpaceX popping the champaign corks last night was just
ridiculous. Pick up the pieces, learn from the mistakes and try again.
But enough with the spin factory already.

The first two launches did fail to make orbit, but the second made it partly
through the second stage burn. That's a huge improvement over the first
launch attempt.

Part of the point of Falcon I is its low cost, which it is achieving by
essentially starting from scratch. Yes it failed to make orbit, but it was
the second failure of a new design that's never made orbit. Because of
this, I think you've got to have lower expectations.

I'm not surprised to find people calling foul when they appear to be
treating Falcon I with kid gloves compared to Delta IV-Heavy, but I think
everyone has to remember that they're still a fairly new company that
started from scratch (even with engine development). However, Boeing has
been in the launch business for decades and we naturally have higher
expectations when they produce a new Delta IV variant that's clearly based
on previous, operational, models.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

On Mar 22, 2:33 pm, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 04:01:20 -0500, Neil Gerace wrote
(in article ):



"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Well, if nothing else, it's showing the on-time launch reliability
demonstrated by the Shuttle in a privately funded booster.
I still don't think that pre-launch test firing of a engine with an
ablative combustion chamber lining is a good idea.

Whence can the video be downloaded (non-streaming would be best)?

Here you go, Neil:

http://www.spacex.com/video_gallery.php


Note that the one on youtube lasts about 15 seconds longer and shows
the final rolls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by-iwbgkaIA
It can be downloaded too ( google on download, youtube )

-kert

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:06:56 -0500, kert wrote
(in article .com):



Note that the one on youtube lasts about 15 seconds longer and shows
the final rolls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by-iwbgkaIA
It can be downloaded too ( google on download, youtube )

http://www.videodownloader.net

There's also an extension for Firefox that works great. Or so I've heard.
:-)

--
You can run on for a long time,
Sooner or later, God'll cut you down.
~Johnny Cash

On 21 Mar 2007 20:14:01 -0700, "Totorkon" wrote:

I think we can be atleast as generous
in our evaluation of the falcon.

No, we can't. Either it worked or it didn't. Price tags, owners, and
development history don't factor into whether a flight was a success
or not.

I am NOT saying "SpaceX needs to go out of business!" or "Elon Musk
should be shot for botching this launch!". I'm just saying this launch
was an overall failure, and the spinning that is going on is
ridiculous. No one else would get away with it, but because its SpaceX
most around here are saying "Aw, they didn't really fail! They learned
a helluva lot!" "Well, they got a lot farther THIS time!" "They're new
guys, give 'em a chance! Hold them to different standards!"

Well, no. If they want to come in an takeover the market (which they
do and which I hope they do) then they need to play by the same rules.
Boeing tried to spin a failure and got crucified for it. Now SpaceX
should suffer the same consequences of silly PA spinning.

Brian

In sci.space.history message ,
Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:52:33, Jeff Findley
posted:

Oops. Looks like Falcon 1 demo flight 1 was launched on Saturday, 24 March
2006.

That seems unlikely, since I had it noted as
2006-03-24 Fri - SpaceX Falcon 1 launch #1, 1st stage failed early

A given Gregorian date is everywhere the same day of the week, though
the name of the day of the week is language-dependent.

That launch was 2006-03-24 in both local and UTC; this week's was
Tuesday local, Wednesday UTC,

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 IE 6.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
But enough with the spin factory already.

Spinning is what caused the failure.

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On 21 Mar 2007 20:14:01 -0700, "Totorkon" wrote:

I think we can be atleast as generous
in our evaluation of the falcon.

No, we can't. Either it worked or it didn't. Price tags, owners, and
development history don't factor into whether a flight was a success
or not.

Failing to get to orbit, in and of itself, doesn't make a launch a failure.
In this case, it does, because it was supposed to launch satellites.
However, if this had been a test of the first stage, and everything else was
a bonus, then it would *not* be a failure.

Of course, then every launch becomes a first stage test.

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in
:

Failing to get to orbit, in and of itself, doesn't make a launch a
failure. In this case, it does, because it was supposed to launch
satellites. However, if this had been a test of the first stage, and
everything else was a bonus, then it would *not* be a failure.

I see it as a partial success: achieving orbit was the final goal but
SpaceX wanted to demonstrate as much of the hardware as possible, and
there was no actual payload to be orbited other than the stage itself.
As a _development flight_, it did demonstrate nearly all of the hardware
and apparently uncovered some problems that will be fixed before the
next flight. That's the point of a development program; some failure
is to be expected and tolerated on the way to a proven design. The
same-day engine restart was a minor bonus.

If the next flight does carry a payload, then it had better make it
to the desired orbit to be called a (full) success, in the eyes of paying
customers. SpaceX knows that.

Thus my despin.

--Damon, expecting more surprises in the course of analysis

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 17:27:33 -0400, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:

I think we can be atleast as generous
in our evaluation of the falcon.

No, we can't. Either it worked or it didn't. Price tags, owners, and
development history don't factor into whether a flight was a success
or not.

Failing to get to orbit, in and of itself, doesn't make a launch a failure.

It does if the vehicle was intended to reach orbit, as Falcon 1 No.2
was.

In this case, it does, because it was supposed to launch satellites.
However, if this had been a test of the first stage, and everything else was
a bonus, then it would *not* be a failure.

Yes, but the point I'm trying to make is that nowhere else in the
industry would the Falcon 1 No.2 flight be considered a success.
Boeing's second Delta III was not a success, even though Stage 1
worked fine. LockMart's Milstar 2 launch was not a success, even
though Stage 1 and 2 of the Titan IV both worked fine.

Brian