Final update on this post (11:30 MT): Elon Musk has a statement on the Space X updates page confirming the loss of the rocket due to a staging malfunction. Bummer. He goes on to say that they will investigate and continue on with the next scheduled flight.
UPDATE 2 (11:16 MT): Reliable word has it that the stages failed to separate, resulting in a loss of the vehicle.
UPDATE (9:43 Mountain time): The launch went off, but a little over a minute in there was a "vehicle anomaly", and the webcam feed cut out. I have no idea if they lost the vehicle or not. Even the Space X website isn’t loading (probably too much traffic). I’ll post more when I find out.
Space X has announced that they will attempt to launch a Falcon 1 rocket into orbit today. The launch window starts at 4:00 Pacific time (23:00 UT). Read more about it at their site, and they also have a live streaming web cam as well! I suggest tuning in about a half hour early (3:30 Pacific) so that you don’t miss anything.
Just in case, I’ve embedded the player below as well. Enjoy the launch!
August 2nd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
[…] Update (Saturday Aug 2): They are going to try for launch today! Go here for info. […]
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Good luck Space X. Absolutely a marvelous mission. It’s going to be a success.
They are streaming off Mac OS X Leopard, great. (Click the green pan button to see.)
August 2nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I’ll go on record and predict the launch will be another failure. I’ve been watching these guys and I just don’t think they know what they’re doing.
The static test firing of the Falcon 9 that was up earlier…that looked like a very ineffecient engine, like something from 30 or 40 years ago. I used to seeing bright, blue, clean, strong exhaust with diamond spikes in the plume.
I don’t know, I just haven’t seen anything from SpaceX that inspires me with any confidence.
August 2nd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
It has just been changed to 5 pm Pacific Time
August 2nd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
@Xavier Onassis: Now I might be optimistic but calling it an out right failure is just not the right odds to be said.
August 2nd, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Hi Phil.
Live podcast tomorrow?
August 2nd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Tip: If the craptastically quiet audio on the high quality stream is making anyone else crazy… switch to the standard quality and the audio is louder.
August 2nd, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Slightly OT, but Universe Today is reporting some cool news from Mars. Seems Phoenix has found something more compelling than water. They reported it to the White House science advisor, and they won’t be releasing the finding until Mid August.
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
LOL who saw that??? http://img156.imageshack.us/my.php?image=falconwebcastgs0.jpg
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Oh, how hilarious! No wonder it’s blurry. Their stream is coming off a camera… a camera pointed at a stream playing on a laptop screen! And Quicktime just crashed on them. Too funny. C’mon, Elon, you can do better than this. You’re a tech guy!
*nonetheless very excited!!!*
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:47 pm
You can read about their engine design on their web site. The nature of the exhaust plume is related to the type of fuel they are using. In this case LOX and kerosene.
The space shuttle uses LOX and liquid hydrogen, so it’s gonna burn a bit cleaner.
You cannot gauge the effectiveness of an engine based on how cool it looks. What matters is results. Space-X has lost two vehicles so far, so their struggling which is not surprising considering what they are trying to do. If they succeed then they will have the lowest $/lb to LEO solution out there.
Of all of the private space guys they have the best chance of getting there first. And “Virgin Galactic” doesn’t count since, IMHO, a vertical rocket ride to nowhere is pointless, unless you point is to separate fools from their cash. Meanwhile all of the other folks playing in this field have cool mock ups and CGI demos but not much else to show for it.
No, I think SpaceX will get there. They are building on proven technology with a solid track record. It might take a few tries. If ti was easy then everyone would be doing it.
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Arg. Their != they’re. I feel like an AOL newb.
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
My favorite image of the stream till launch:
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h190/pimpollo_2006/fail.jpg
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:54 pm
They just announced fuel offloading, so I do believe they have scrubbed the launch.
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:54 pm
This is the blog of Elon Musk’s brother - he’s putting up info as it comes in - not too detailed but more than the webcast is giving us: http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:55 pm
I just wish I could see the countdown clock in the upper right-hand corner!
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Whoops, posted too soon.
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Space.com also has live updates with more info - seems they’re restarting. http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/080802-spacex-falcon1.html
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
I heard the fuel offloading comment too. Oh well. If you fiddle with the aspect-ratio control (or whatever it is) on the bottom of the feed (third button from the right), it might help you see the countdown clock.
August 2nd, 2008 at 7:02 pm
So thats it then
August 2nd, 2008 at 7:06 pm
They are “confident” that they will overcome the “minor issues” within the launch window and will resume the webcast in about 30 mins.
August 2nd, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Audio announcement: Offloading some fuel to prevent it from being too cold and therefore having less thrust. The delay is getting the last few percent of pressurizing gas — helium — loaded. When that’s loaded they’ll refill fuel. Still confident they’ll launch today.
August 2nd, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I’m telling ya, these guys are the Keystone Cops of rocketry.
August 2nd, 2008 at 7:40 pm
I hated this kind of hold when I was on a launch crew at the Cape in the 1960s. I was an autopilot and guidance control guy. We’d finally get all the electronics running nominally ready for launch, switch the bird over to internal power, and then the damned torpedomen would screw up the hydraulics or pneumatics, and we’d sit and sit, waiting for the on-board batteries to fry.
August 2nd, 2008 at 8:23 pm
liftoff now expected at 2200 PDT/0300 UTC
August 2nd, 2008 at 8:24 pm
err.. make that 2000 PDT. I’m in CDT, so that’d be my 2200CDT.
August 2nd, 2008 at 8:33 pm
T - 27 mins and counting! Liftoff expected at 8PM PDT!!
August 2nd, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Thanks for the tip, Maggie, re sound.
August 2nd, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Frakking Quicktime crashed again.
August 2nd, 2008 at 8:45 pm
It’s back up, Whooo!
August 2nd, 2008 at 8:49 pm
I love the fact that when their Webcast program crashed, and dropped them back to the OS X desktop, one of the error options was: “Relaunch”
Lolirony?
August 2nd, 2008 at 8:52 pm
IronyCat says:
Iz in ur Mac, wit Alanis Morissette.
August 2nd, 2008 at 8:54 pm
although, maybe ‘irony’ isn’t the word I meant.
Maybe I meant to say: lolforeshadowing?
either way, here we go!
August 2nd, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Wow, this is the first time I have actually caught anything live! I am so excited!
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Oi! Another delay!
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
…fail.
I guess I foreshadowed correctly? that sucks. we really need these guys to do this. this is going to be a great thing.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Getting fed up now
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Aborted. They think might attempt another launch shortly (!).
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Anyone here with experience at NASA launches? Did they ever have issues like this? Be nice to have some benchmarks.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Aborted after ignition… 1 of 180 checks failed and launch was aborted.
I seriously wish they would sharpen the feed and get rid of quick time.. this is nothing more than a long advert for Mac OS quicktime sucking
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Oh dear.s thist way sthe worst ting ever to cheks while druks.
The oldds lodading portocols made trying to resolve images, amd ,atj in head for forom reliable.
Also, teh factc taht jeus wehnd and stabbbed ghandi din’t help
Also. Beans
In the final analysis, don’t watch while drunk, due to odd loading protocols.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
It was a dud
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:05 pm
My Cable went out just before launch, causing me to lose internet access. I’m trying unsuccesfully to watch non my grandparents ancient dial up connection.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:07 pm
GAH! I was getting really excited for once, too! It’s always one little tiny insignificant problem that makes everything blow up, isn’t it? What were their words, “one paramater out of 124 out of bounds”? I guess a delay is better then an explosion, anyway.
Come on, SpaceX team! Get it together! You can do this!
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:07 pm
sure got quiet with all the commentary after the abort..
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Dial-up? Best of luck to you!
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:09 pm
From an engineering perspective, I am in awe that they have systems that allow them to shut down the ignition at T+01 and still be in a position to try again within the hour. This is what designing a long-term commercially viable system is all about.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:10 pm
1:30!!!
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:10 pm
One parameter was 1% outside the limits…
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Possibility of t-10 mins.. 1% discrepancy on fuel load
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Possibly resetting the countdown to T-00:10:00.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Update from the stream for those who missed it:
One of the propulsion parameters was 1% out of range.
Engineers looking at possibilities for recycling.
Possible countdown reset in 10 minutes.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:12 pm
I can’t believe they’re even thinking of going at it again tonight. Wow.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:12 pm
That’s the story. It was really just a twitchy engineer with his finger too close to the abort button.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:13 pm
I’ve never seen a rocket light up that didn’t either lift or blow up. I’m impressed they could shut her down. I just hope it isn’t the guy who set up the webcast that is fixing the problem.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:15 pm
@CanadianLeigh
Go easy on them. They’re using Macs. (ducking)
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
I just hope it isn’t the guy who set up the webcast that is fixing the problem.
LOL
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
I wondered why they mixed in the audio of everyone cheering and counting down… it sounded like there countdown was faster than the countdown heard in the feed. Perhaps just the terrible way they’re broadcasting it in which its not mixed correctly.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
That is what is good about liquid fueled rockets, you can shut them down (I think..), as opposed to solid fuel.
I wonder what the parameter was that went awry?
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Todd W. Says:
Go easy on them. They’re using Macs. (ducking)
……………………………
Explains a lot
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Now the cable’s back on and the launch is not
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
@Todd
The abort was computer-generated, no fingers involved!
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
What, they’re using hamburgers? Oh yeh, that would be a big mac. sorry.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:19 pm
So much for the t-00:10:00
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:20 pm
How close are they to loosing the window for today?
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
@CanadianLeigh
They have around 45 minutes left today…
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Is it just me or does it look like the wind has picked up a lot on the live feed? perhaps enough people have fallen off the stream that i’m just better video
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:23 pm
@CanadianLeigh
That surprised me, too. When I saw her light up and heard “abort”… I was waiting for the big boom.
The morbid side of me was disappointed.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Here we go again!
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Countdown’s going again.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Go for second launch attempt! T-10:00
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
yes!!!! 10:00
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
T minus 10 and counting!
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
whoo hoo
t-10
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I’m pumped! COME ON! You can do it!
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Bet ya there’ll be less yelling at T - 0.5 this time around…
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:29 pm
They just did all the holds and the abort to build suspense. Classic maneuver.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Looking good!
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:34 pm
i like the countdown lady’s voice.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
YES!
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Falcon has cleared the tower!
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
that is a fast take off rocket
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
YAY! *science fanboy squeal*
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
. . . and Mach 1 at T+54.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
. . . and at T+2:18, the rocket flies into a giant Q.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
An anomaly on the vehicle! Aaaaahhhh!
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
jesus quicktime
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Uh-oh!
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Liftoff! Yay! Wow that was beautiful.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Oh noes, there was an anomaly!
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Video from the rocket dropped out. Some kind of “anomaly” (I think that means an earth shattering kaboom).
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Oh no.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
THAT’s IT??? Looked like the thrusters were just blowing nothing but smoke. But maybe that’s what it’s supposed to look like, I don’t know.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Ooooh, an anomaly. I wonder what it is.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Whoo! I almost missed it.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I think it just blew up.. only anomaly i know of that would cause them to quit like that.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
“An anomaly on the vehicle” I guess could be one way of saying it blew up. I hope that’s not what happened.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Oops, there’s that Quicktime logo again.
“SPACEX SAYS THERE HAS BEEN AN ANOMALY.”
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
stupid inertial guidance mode… that was pretty while it lasted. Here is hoping they get some good data if anything major happened.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
anomaly = anti-climatic.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Oh heck, are you guys kidding me? Something happened?
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:41 pm
The golden age of space flight is postponed again!
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Not really. Anomalies in non-government rocketry are usually spectacularly climactic!
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Ummm, any reports from the ground? Did anybody see what happened?
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:42 pm
So much for that new mission control with a light up floor, blue desks and movie theater size screens. Sounds like more investment on the rocket is needed than gimmicks on the launch/design facilities.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:42 pm
It better not be the same as that famous nasa ‘anomaly, in which the launch vehicle blew the #*($&@# up. It seemed to happen around Max-Q, maybe that had something to do with it?
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I think the rocket crashed into the spacex.com web server….
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
@Harold:
“Posted August 2, 2008 - 20:38 PDT
We have heard from launch control that there has been an anomaly. More details will be posted to the website as available. ”
S’all we got here…
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
damn those russians lol
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Quite clearly the work of UFO’s.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:45 pm
dunno if it means anything, but while I was watching, it appeared the plume changed about 10 seconds before the screen went black…it seemed a littel more diffuse, for want of a better term…maybe they lost thrust and had to do a safety abort…or maybe the plume just changes with altitude? …anyway… it was noticable to this viewer
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:45 pm
“Anomoly.” Even if it’s not serious, that’s an incredibly worrying way to phrase it. I’m pretty sure this is something terrible. But hey, it got off the platform at least. Hopefully they’ll learn something.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Told ya. All boot, no cow. These guys have more lobbyists and publicists than they do engineers. They are all hype.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Note to spacex: If you broadcast an event live, have a contingency plan in place in the event of failure. Don’t just drop off the face of the earth. If i were an investor or potential payload for your company and was watching this play out i’d seriously pull out. Just my 2 cents but not the best way to handle an “anomaly”
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:46 pm
@Neil Vickers
Anomalies in government rocketry are also usually spectacularly climactic. In fact, anomalies in rocketry are usually spectacularly climactic.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:46 pm
either way, that was pretty spectacular to watch in real time.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Thanks, Michelle. Yep, I heard that much. I’m just wondering if anybody armed with a Crackberry or other portable device was watching through binoculars. Telemetry only goes so far when your sensors are travelling in several hundred directions at once.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
The sad thing is, the Wikipedia article is completely up to date…
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Wiki says
“At 04:35 UTC, the Falcon 1 lifted off from Omelek Island but due to an anomaly failed to reach low Earth orbit.[21][22]. Contact with the vehicle was lost at +2:00 minutes into the mission after the vehicle had passed MaxQ.”
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Ian Kennedy - Ahem. I think I called this one.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:48 pm
They are trying to trick us, that was no anomaly, that were the aliens scramblin the rocket!
lolololol
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
There is only one reasonable explanation for this “anomaly”, the Falcon 1 collided with Nibiru! Or the government or UFOs or something.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
at least their website is back up & running.. no video though
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:51 pm
WTF is with stopping the webcast within seconds of the “anomaly”? You’d almost think they were embarassed and/or trying to hid something?
I remember watching the Challenger explosion live on TV in highschool, and NASA didn’t stop coverage that quick after that terrible tragedy.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:52 pm
The woman said killAWmeter. Maybe that’s the anomaly…
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:52 pm
@Rob in PA
I noticed that too. I assumed at the time it was due to altitude. Perhaps not?
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:53 pm
@Rob in PA
I also noticed the change in plume, I thought it was getting ready to separate. How much does each launch cost them?
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Wikipedia only cites the SpaceX webcam feed page and Spaceflight Now, neither of whom have details (and it looks like Spaceflight Now is getting all their information from the webcam feed, same as we are).
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:53 pm
@Cory: Well, their camera was sorta *on the rocket*. So if the whole thing a-sploded…
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Wikipedia’s article on Falcon 1 now reads as follows:
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:54 pm
@ Joey J J
Also, maybe the plume changes directly prior to staging (I’m thinking way back to Apollo days when this would happen)….I don’t know how long the first stage burn was supposed to be…maybe it failed at staging??
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Xavier Onassis: “All hype,” eh? Why don’t you put together a space transport company and see how good you do your first few launches?
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Looked like a roll control issue.
If there was a big explosion it was the “Range Safety System”, a radio and set of pyro devices designed to make sure the rocket comes back to Earth in millions of little pieces. And all rockets launched from U.S. national ranges have it whether commercial or government.
@Xavier Onassis
Sorry, I don’t know how to be polite about this - you don’t know what you are talking about.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:56 pm
@Evil German
Ahhh… so she wanted to kill A.W. Meter! No wonder they dropped the webcast so suddenly.
I have to agree with the other commentators, though. Dropping it like that was weird.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:57 pm
@ Rowan
Our posts crossed…you were thinking what I was about the staging
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Was the rocket still in view from the launch site when the “anomaly” occurred? As in they’d be able to see it if it went boom?
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:57 pm
@Blake Stacey: another part of the wiki right under that…
“Members participating that the SpaceX camp have been twittering that there was a loss of the vehicle during the separation stage, which resulted in the engine exploding.”
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Did anyone record the stream? It might clarify things for us if we can watch the grainy video.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:00 pm
@David Masten
I believe there was some resistance from within NASA to putting the charges on the STS. Basically, some NASA management guys thought the chance of failure was 1 in 10,000 or 100,000 or some ridiculous number like that. So it might not be a prerequisite for launching? Although I assume an experimental private rocket would have them.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:00 pm
These SpaceX folks have no idea what they are doing. This is a vanity program being bankrolled by a space enthusiast with too much money, too much enthusiasm, too many lobbyists, and not enough engineers with the cajones to say “NO”.
The Branson/Rutan partnership has much more long term promise than this SpaceX nonsense.
Virgin Galactic has REAL engineers with Rutan and REAL business genius with Branson. And a proven record by winning the X Prize with Space Ship One.
As far as I can see, all SpaceX has is a string of delays and failures. How is it that they have a single dime of government money or commitment?
I don’t get it.
Why is SpaceX even considered a contender? They have not delivered on a single commitment or launched a single payload.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
It’s not like NASA had a perfect record with its first few launches, either. Vanguard, any one?
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Heck, Xaviar Onassis can’t even get colloquialisms right. It’s “all hat and no cattle.” But I for one appreciate his insightful commentary. *cough*
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
I’d guess that the reason for the rapid end of the webcast is precisely because this is a private company, and not NASA. In addition to the company needing to devote 100% of their resources to capturing as much information as possible as quickly as possible, they also need to protect their shareholders (or whoever gives them money; I don’t know if they are publicly traded). If some snippet of sensitive information or incorrect speculation about the failure were to get out, a lot of money could be lost.
Since this is a private company, we (the public) have no right to know what happened, at least in real time. I’m sure the abrupt end of the webcast was a planned contingency to protect the corporation.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:03 pm
@Xavier: They’re beginners. Even NASA and the russians blew up a lot before one actually worked.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:04 pm
@Joey Joe Joe and David Masten
I’m pretty sure that the STS has the Range Safety charges on the stack…the SRB’s have them for sure…they were used during the Challenger accident…I would assume they’re on the Orbiter, too…??
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:06 pm
@Michelle:
Like somebody else was saying, the frightening/cool thing about this is how the Wikipedia article is being updated in real time. I promise that wasn’t there when I looked at it.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:08 pm
@Rob
Sorry, I should have clarified. Yes, there are charges on the STS (SRBs at least. I think on the orbiter too but check me on that) . The engineers put them there despite NASA management resistance. One of the Feynman books (I think it was “What do you care what other people think?”) has the whole story.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:09 pm
@Blake: I believe you!
It was gone 10 seconds later!
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:09 pm
. . . and now it’s gone again (deleted by User:Musashi1600 as “unverifiable information”).
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Cory Albrecht - I don’t need to “…put together a space transport company and see how good you do your first few launches…” in order to gag on the stench of failure.
SpaceX has not had one single success…ever. Not one.
David Masten - “@Xavier Onassis Sorry, I don’t know how to be polite about this - you don’t know what you are talking about.” To what, specifically, are you referring? I predicted that this launch attempt would fail and that is exactly what has occurred. In what way do I “not know what I am talking about”?
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:14 pm
@Rob in PA
I was just going by footage I have seen with previous rockets, but it did look similar.
What is this wiki people are getting their info from? Not Wikipedia..what is it?!
I think to get as far as they have gotten is commendable, and I for one am impressed.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:14 pm
@Xavier,
NASA and the Russians had successful ICBM designs to work off of. These guys have to work from the ground up. That said, if you want to talk flash and PR and then somehow imply that any company connected to Richard Branson would be lacking in that department, you are completely out to lunch. Richard Branson not interested in a PR machine. Bah! Hell, you might be Branson the way you’re going on about it.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:16 pm
@Xavier - First - Elon hired top talent. Second, SpaceX is (in)famous for having an engineering dominated corporate culture, Elon literally refers to finance, marketing, legal, HR, and so forth as the “noise” of “high signal to noise ratio”. Third, actually knowing something about Scaled Composites (<- hint, hint) and Virgin Galactic might make your claims more believable.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:16 pm
By the way, predicting a fledgling space program will fail an attempt… and being right about it: About as impressive as a psychic predicting someone somewhere had someone close to them pass recently. I can’t give you points for that, sorry.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:19 pm
From “Being told by NASA engineer most rockets take 8 or 9 launches to succeed. Beginning prep on rockets #5 & 6.”
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:19 pm
I bow to Egaeus. I was casting my prejudicial gaze too low and mistaking boots for hats. Thank you for that correction.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:27 pm
The Chemist - “NASA and the Russians had successful ICBM designs to work off of. These guys have to work from the ground up.”
WHAT?!? Are you telling me that some Internet Entrepeneur had to hire people to re-invent the rocketry wheel? Are you arguing that SpaceX had no access to the publically available R&D from Pennemude to Ariane?
Heck, I have yellowed paperbacks on my bookshelves that contain decades of engineering expertise.
Don’t tell me that SpaceX had to work “from the ground up”.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
The launch video is online here.
http://www.onorbit.com/node/360
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:33 pm
@XavierOnassis: “I don’t need to ‘…put together a space transport company and see how good you do your first few launches…’ in order to gag on the stench of failure.”
Translation: I’m just speaking out of my ass with no real qualifications to comment from, but I won’t let that stop me.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
More analysis at
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:35 pm
@Xavier - seem to be crossing comments here - your initial claim was that Falcon 1 would fail. You were right, but the rest of the comment suggests for the wrong reasons. Kerosene (RP-1) does not look as clean as alcohol - which is the nice blue flame with pretty shock diamonds you referred to. Thing is, RP-1 has better performance than alcohol. One really cannot tell engine performance by the plume alone without knowing other design details about the engine. And neither of us knows enough of the design details. BTW - I know a thing or two about rocket propulsion and the industry. Really, Elon has a top notch organization, it *is* rocket science after all.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Xavier- what’s your beef with SpaceX? So they have had 3 failures. What’s it to you?
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:37 pm
David Masten - “SpaceX is (in)famous for having an engineering dominated corporate culture” Um, no…SpaceX is “(in)famous” for failures like today. They had one, barely marginal “success”. One that succeeded in spite of itself.
I had more successes 40 years ago launching and recovering Estes model rockets than SpaceX has had.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Xavier, do you have any evidence that the engineers at Space X don’t know what they are doing? Do you have years of experience building rockets, knowing how hard it is, what goes into it, what can go wrong? Do you personally know anyone at Space X and have reviewed their resume and experience?
Talk about all hat and no cattle.
How many failures did NASA have before the Saturn V lifted off for the Moon? Give these guys a break. Sheesh.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Actually, I have more to add, Xavier. You come here, knowing that most of the people reading and commenting here — including me, the blogger — want Space X to succeed, yet you rain all over the place here. Tell you what: when you have hard evidence, come on back and show it. Until then, you can express your opinion politely, but drop the attitude.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
A heads up to those of you asking about the growth of the plume: That’s quite natural, and I’d be worried if that didn’t happen! The plume just grows because of reduced air pressure at higher altitudes. There’s a more or less constant mass flow rate coming out of the engine, so when it’s got less pushing it in, it expands more than at lower altitudes. No, the interesting thing is that little rocking that started in the video.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:47 pm
“I had more successes 40 years ago launching and recovering Estes model rockets than SpaceX has had.”
That line cost you any credibility you may have had.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Phil, if you had an edit option, you could have just added to your original post
Thanks for the info Ryan, I have been reading some more info and it does seem like the roll could be the problem, but we will more info shortly I am sure!
*I get knocked down, but I get up again, you’re never gonna keep me down..*
sorry.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I’ll go on record and predict Xavier will post another comment explaining how he’s always right. I’ve been watching this guy and I think he’s going to bask in the glow of his accurate prediction (50/50 guess).
I don’t know, I just haven’t seen anything from Xavier that makes me think he’ll back off.
Johno
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:51 pm
@ Ryan
Thanks for the info! Makes sense. I saw the slight oscillation, too, but figured it was nothing compared to that spinning on the first Spaceship One flight! (I know, I know….totally different vehicle dynamics
).
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:56 pm
I just watched the video at http://www.onorbit.com/node/360 , and the rocking doesn’t look too bad, and it didn’t appear to be increasing with time. The stream just stopped, with no indication at all of what happened. If the vehicle had exploded I’d expect to see some flash or a moment of chaos. But there was nothing at all.
So I won’t make any guesses as to what happened. We’ll know soon enough.
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:03 pm
DAMN! I missed the whole freekin’ thing!
I always cringe when I hear the word “anomaly” anywhere near anything having to do with anything designed to go into space. In my mind, it’s NASA-speak for ***KABOOOOOOMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!***
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Yes, unlike their previous launches, the problem here is rather hard to pick out. The first one was rather obvious, and when my professor showed us a video of the second launch, the staging hitting the engine and the growing oscillation was rather obvious. Here, I’ve only a germ of an idea. Apparently they had just switched to inertial guidance, so that may play into it. For all we know, the vehicle didn’t explode, and ended up reentering and burning up. Same end result, but it would mean a very different cause. I think this is going to be a wait and see.
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Apparently, the rocket is lost: http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/2008/08/rocket-is-lost.html
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:12 pm
OMG James Doohan’s (Scotty) ashes are lost!!!! Sorry to say this but SpaceX = Fail
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
I had the privilege of talking with Ed Buckbee recently. Although, he is not a rocket scientist, he knew many of the scientist that worked in NASA for decades. So he has some idea about what goes into a rocket program.
The old school rocketmen or Grey Beards as they call them are the guys that know how to put a rocket on the moon. These days new guys are planning the same thing, but you have to pretty much start from scratch when you start with a new delivery system. All the math to get you up there is easy, but all the engineering is going to be new. There will always be hickups along the way to achieving a big goal.
As for the silly Virgin program as far as i know that has no capacity and never will have the capacity to put anything into any orbit. You might be in “space”, but it you come back down you are not in orbit. I can build a rocket in my shed that can do what Branson is doing… minus the people. Nasa did what he is doing forty years ago they did it faster and higher and using slide rules. They just didn’t take euro trash into orbit with them.
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Here’s a link to the second launch for those who haven’t seen it. Quite a shame it made it so far only to fall at the last hurdle. The staging looked way-cool, though!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CwuIQ9d5D8
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:17 pm
This site is claiming it was problem during staging (which was my personal guess, aside from the oscillations, it’s really the only thing that happens at that altitude) : http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/08/03/spacex-launch-of-falcon-1-suffers-an-anomaly-during-launch
Text:
‘Update at 1:01 am EDT - SpaceX is reporting that the booster on the rocket did not separate correctly. Diane Murphy, the SpaceX vice president of marketing and communications released the following statement tonight:
“It was obviously a big disappoint not to reach orbit on this Flight 003 of the Falcon 1. On the plus side, the flight of our first stage with the new Merlin 1C regenerative engine that will be used in Falcon 9 was picture-perfect. Unfortunately, a problem occurred at stage separation causing the stages to be held together. This is under investigation.” ‘
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:19 pm
@Phil - the webcast was on a substantial delay. The Falcon should have been at or near stage separation when the webcast was cut.
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Hmm… what do I need to do to put a URL in my comment? The ones I did at, like to a twitter page of Elon Musk’s sister who was at the Space-X HQ and to spacevidcast dot com seem to have been deleted.
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Doh, what I’d give for an edit button. Message from Elon Musk up on the SpaceX website. Basically the same as above.
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Just got up (6 am here) any news? As far as the Space X v Virgin galactic goes…the more the merrier! I wish only good things and success for both companies
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:22 pm
BA’s link doesn’t work because of the comma at the end, but JHill’s does.
This just in via space.com:
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:25 pm
More info and a video here: http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/08/falcon_launch_v.html
“Unfortunately, a problem occurred with stage separation, causing the stages to be held together.”
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Staging is evil. But it may very well be a necessary evil.
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Damn Xavier, did someone from SpaceX sleep with your girlfriend or something?
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:35 pm
What a shame. Better luck next time guys. We’re all (well MOST of us)rooting for you.
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:43 pm
@ Michael L
I too was reading that on Universe Today. That would be VERY cool news indeed
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:54 pm
I’m glad Phil finally put the smackdown on Xavier.
Guy equates launching Estes model rockets to building and launching an orbital delivery vehicle.
Just another small angry person taking advantage of the anonymity of the intert00bs…
August 3rd, 2008 at 12:04 am
In order to respect the BA’s rule about foul language, some of the following may be incomprehensible:
Xavier said, “WHAT?!? Are you telling me that some Internet Entrepeneur had to hire people to re-invent the rocketry wheel? Are you arguing that SpaceX had no access to the publically available R&D from Pennemude to Ariane?”
What the guzumpfus are you on about? Yes, to a certain extent that’s exactly what I’m saying. Why do you think the Iranians or North Koreans don’t have ICBMs despite a keen desire to get them? Primarily because there’s more to it than you are apparently willing to consider. By contrast, there is no secret science surrounding nuclear weapons. So why did the Koreans only get a fizzle and the Iranians make fairly impure uranium? I think you fail to see the leap between praxis and theory, but most of all, I think you’re just full of goosh.
“Heck, I have yellowed paperbacks on my bookshelves that contain decades of engineering expertise.”
I do too, my father gave ‘em to me. Granted, it’s civil engineering and not rockets, but he would laugh at me if I tried to use one to trump him in argument (not that I have arguments about civil engineering-not my thing). Decades of contemporary on the job experience means that those things are pretty much memorized, and don’t provide solutions to all his problems. Tell me, do you make criticize people who are injured while disposing of bombs? After all, I’m pretty sure it’s covered in a handbook or two somewhere.
August 3rd, 2008 at 12:27 am
Disappointing. However, I think the next one will succeed.
My optimism was right from what I knew, the rocket did succeed but unfortunately another problem surfaced. And I hope they have better live feed or we will have to wait until they launch from Cape Canaveral.
August 3rd, 2008 at 12:29 am
…I mean the Merlin engine did succeed.
August 3rd, 2008 at 2:42 am
I watched the launch with my mom who is 68. She was pretty into it! Thanks for the link BA.
August 3rd, 2008 at 4:47 am
“The stream just stopped, with no indication at all of what happened. If the vehicle had exploded I’d expect to see some flash or a moment of chaos. But there was nothing at all.”
Phil, though I don’t know wether SpaceX does it, for telemetry of pictures some kind of on board data compression may be used. To make space on the datastream for the important real time stuff. So if the rocket explodes, it also destroys the chip compressing the video taking with it the last frames in the pipeline.
Moreover I presume a short time lag is introduced on purpose to be able to cut off real drama.
August 3rd, 2008 at 5:44 am
And something else, how do I say that politely?
A failure is not accidental. It has a reason. Its bad design or bad decision.
I also think that loosing the third vehicle in a row shows that something in SpaceXs engineering organisation doesn’t work quite right.
Especially when the speculation is correct that the staging mechanism failed.
Somewhere (Falcon1 description) on their webpage they state that the staging mechanism has a 100% track record in separating stages. Now this system fails. Overconfidence in the QS department? Taking a shortcut with procedures?
Usually, in aviation, redundant systems are used and single point of failure systems are avoided at a lot of cost. Many people call that for safety reasons, but it condenses to mission reliability. In rocketry, systems with single point failure probabbility may be chosen due to weight and cost constraints. But that means you have to make those systems much more reliable (read: expensive) than in a redundant system.
So to get the reliability you design and test and redesign and test and redesign and test until the Boss says stop or the money runs out. Whichever comes first.
That loop only works when communication works. And the conclusion for me is that,
again, something is not quite good with Elons engineering organisation.
When did Boeing or Airbus or any other manufacturer loose a prototype on its maiden flight? Right. (Yea I know of some lost prototypes in testing with smaller manufacturers).
And don’t tell me private rocketry is where aviation was in the 50ties or 60ties.
Modern engineering methods, which makes aviation so reliable and safe today, are also available to the aspiring private space organisation. There is no need to throw away 3 vehicles in a row.
My pucker factor for the Falcon 9 launch expected this year rises. SpaceX is providing an astonishingly exciting adventure to follow and I whish them all the best.
August 3rd, 2008 at 8:29 am
Boy - I guess the only difference between living now and in the 50s is that back then there was optimism that the next one would work out! Also the fact that NASA had a huge budget and could afford to have a bunch of rockets blow up… when is Musk going to run out of capital to provide us with these ultra-expensive fireworks shows?
August 3rd, 2008 at 8:44 am
So… if the stages held together, what happened to the rocket? Did it fall back down?
August 3rd, 2008 at 8:53 am
My bet is that something they did to fix part the problem that took place in flight 2 (stage 1 recontacting stage 2 after separation) led to this problem.
I’ll be seeing Elon at The Mars Society Conference in a couple weeks. He should have an answer by then.
August 3rd, 2008 at 8:53 am
Staging problem… reminds me of the Soyuz capsules, which “failed” more or less the same way lately.
Anyway: Good luck next time, Space X.
), I think it’s a pity that it happend, but go on - once it will work and hopefully it will work on after that.
And when we remembered how the first russian and american (and surely the german V2 at first, too) failed due to “anomalys” (kaboom is quite a good explanation
The Ariane-5 also had some failiures and is working properly, now.
August 3rd, 2008 at 9:04 am
According to a message from Elon (linked from my web page…click on my name to go to my page, then follow the link under the imbedded YouTube in the first entry…posting the link here would put my comment into moderation), he just secured an investment (no details given) and stated that he won’t be giving up.
Michelle - yep, the rocket just fell back down to the water. I’ll be curious to hear if their 1st stage recovery system worked. That would yield some interesting information.
On the video cutting off discussed earlier in the comments: while I find it frustrating, I think it’s the way to go. Video of an out-of-control rocket is less of a confidence builder, in my opinion, than having the last images being a good flight, then coming out with the whole story once you know what happened. Search YouTube for “Sea Launch Explosion” to see how other commercial entities dealt with similar (yet much more spectacular) circumstances. In the early moments of an anomaly, there just isn’t that much to say.
August 3rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Xavier Onassis is troll, pure and simple.
And about rumors… this is deleted (because of unverifiability) fragment that was some time on Wikipedia:
“The webcast documenting the launch showed, via the aft facing onboard camera, the first stage violently recontacting the second stage seconds after separation.[citation needed] Several seconds later, major portions of the second stage were torn away with the first stage. The second stage was observed to tumble and propellant covered the camera lens.[citation needed] Shortly thereafter a major explosion was observed and the video signal was lost. Telemetry data continued as the second stage re-entered on a trajectory slightly north of the first stage. The second stage appeared to never ignite.”
Nice, eh? Note that it is rumour to take with grain of salt.
And this is easy to explain, why feed is clean cut. Simply it is not quite live, but about 30 seconds late. This is used for, guess what, cutting feed when something goes wrong on real live screen. Really, this is not hard to guess that it will be latency in webcast.
August 3rd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Undoubtedly, Space X will release the video of this launch, as they did their first 2 attempts. Give them time to figure out what went wrong.