SpaceX tries again.

See:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...1_launch2.html

I hope this launch turns out better than the last one.

In article .com,
wrote:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...1_launch2.html

I hope this launch turns out better than the last one.

Me too. It's clear that they've learned from the first problem, and
corrected it, so if it fails this time it will almost certainly be from
something completely different. But they can't afford to have too many
such learning experiences -- this one really needs to make orbit.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...1_launch2.html

I hope this launch turns out better than the last one.

Me too. It's clear that they've learned from the first problem, and
corrected it, so if it fails this time it will almost certainly be from
something completely different. But they can't afford to have too many
such learning experiences -- this one really needs to make orbit.

Cynical prediction: in tomorrow's static firing the vehicle will turn
out not to be bolted to the pad. Oopsie!

They really need to have much less than one year between launch attempts.

richard schumacher wrote:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...1_launch2.html

I hope this launch turns out better than the last one.

Me too. It's clear that they've learned from the first problem, and
corrected it, so if it fails this time it will almost certainly be from
something completely different. But they can't afford to have too many
such learning experiences -- this one really needs to make orbit.

Cynical prediction: in tomorrow's static firing the vehicle will turn
out not to be bolted to the pad. Oopsie!

They really need to have much less than one year between launch attempts.

It is not that they _wanted_ to launch from a corrosive island
enviromnent in the middle of nowhere. They probably just decided that
they would rather deal with technical and logistical challenges on a
remote island than with political games and regulatory challenges in
vandenberg. It remains to be seen wether that was the right decision.
But it was definitely a reasonable decision at the time.

I think that they will get to staging this time. I would give them 50%
chance of reaching orbit. If there is a failure in the upper stage,
they will have new information and some data about the reusability of
the first stage. So that would definitely be at least a partial
success.

Since the design is quite conservative and they have lots of competent
people, they will definitely make it to orbit eventually.

godspeed to spacex!!

richard schumacher wrote:
Cynical prediction: in tomorrow's static firing the vehicle will turn
out not to be bolted to the pad. Oopsie!


There was a Viking rocket that pulled that stunt:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/viking.htm

"1952 June 6 - 17:30 GMT - Launch Site: White Sands. Launch Complex:
NLA. Launch Vehicle: Viking. Model: Viking Type 9. LV Configuration:
Viking Type 9 8. FAILU Failed on static firing. Accidentally launched
during ground test.

* Viking 8 Test mission Nation: USA. Agency: USN. Apogee: 6.00 km
(3.70 mi). Surge in thrust ripped rocket from the two bolts holding it
to the pad and it flew horizontally across the launch site. Reached 6
km. References: 247. "

Pat

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:

There was a Viking rocket that pulled that stunt:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/viking.htm

"1952 June 6 - 17:30 GMT - Launch Site: White Sands. Launch Complex:
NLA. Launch Vehicle: Viking. Model: Viking Type 9. LV Configuration:
Viking Type 9 8. FAILU Failed on static firing. Accidentally launched
during ground test.

* Viking 8 Test mission Nation: USA. Agency: USN. Apogee: 6.00 km
(3.70 mi). Surge in thrust ripped rocket from the two bolts holding it
to the pad and it flew horizontally across the launch site. Reached 6
km. References: 247. "

I'd love to have a transcript of the, er, dialog that ensued in the
control room when that happened. It would probably expand my vocabulary!

Best,
- Joe

Joe Strout wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...1_launch2.html

I hope this launch turns out better than the last one.

Me too. It's clear that they've learned from the first problem, and
corrected it, so if it fails this time it will almost certainly be from
something completely different. But they can't afford to have too many
such learning experiences -- this one really needs to make orbit.

How many failures can the program withstand before it tanks?

In article .com,
wrote:

Joe Strout wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...1_launch2.html

I hope this launch turns out better than the last one.

Me too. It's clear that they've learned from the first problem, and
corrected it, so if it fails this time it will almost certainly be from
something completely different. But they can't afford to have too many
such learning experiences -- this one really needs to make orbit.

How many failures can the program withstand before it tanks?

Elon has said two. Hopefully it'll actually stand more if it has to.

wrote:
How many failures can the program withstand before it tanks?



When he started it, he said three IIRC.

Pat

wrote:
[snip]

How many failures can the program withstand before it tanks?

Elon Musk has said that he is willing to try three times. Quote from
the SpaceX website:

That opportunity, however, will depend on the fate of the first few
Falcons, two of which are currently in production. If the first Falcon
does not fly, Musk says he will try again. Asked how many times, his
answer is clear: "Three strikes and we're out."

But I bet that if the third try fails very late in the ascent (e.g.
underperformance or premature shutdown of second stage engine leads to
not making orbit) they will try a fourth time. So their chances of
making orbit eventually are quite good. Certainly much better than any
orbital space startup to date.