Kardax

I dunno... it's hard to see SpaceX losing a lot of contracts even with the repeated failures. They're so darn cheap. You're looking at 10x the cost to get another company to put your product into orbit.

Obviously, nobody's going to ask SpaceX to put a high cost / high risk item up there with their performance so far, but if you've got a cheap $100k satellite you want to send up, you could lose 5 or 6 of them and still save money. Heck, if you get a refund if the rocket fails, just let them keep trying until they get it :)

-Ryan

DDB

I did research as a law school student for a professor digging through congressional testimony back in law school. The prof was doing research on a broader question as to whether it was legal for private space flight and exploration.

It was a whole lot of hypotheticals thrown out there by all the big names in space and the question was never answered. Most of it was what would be expected as to opinions on whether government should fund such endeavors or whether risks are worth taking.

I would imagine that sooner rather than later Space X and Virgin are going to trigger some legislation (here anyhow) that will prohibit just such episodes in the near future for the simple reason you can't go shooting giant firecrackers around the globe while scattering ashes in the process. Sooner or later you're going to injure or kill someone or damage property (which has already happened). Just a matter of time before Uncle Sam says "no more."

__________________
Dave

'05 Passat powered by Biodiesel
'54 Corvette

dpeilow

Full video now online, for those that are interested:

http://mfile.akamai.com/22165/wmv/sp...165/F1-003.asx

graham

They have given more information about what when wrong at the launch:

Spaceflight Now | Breaking News | Collision between rocket stages doomed Falcon 1

They are claiming they will have this problem fixed and go for a new launch as early as next month.

SteveF

From watching the video link that was provided earlier, it certainly seems clear that the two stages bumped into one another. Up to that point, the launch seemed to be going quite well. Whatever you may think about Elon, I for one hope the next launch for SpaceX goes well. Whatever keeps Elon's deep pockets deep is fine by me, just in case Tesla for any reason needs his help to keep it moving full speed ahead.

Chris H.

The problem with this explanation is that the stage separation was supposed to happen at T=+2:39, and yet the failure appears to have occurred at T=+2:12. Does anybody know why the launch failed 27 secs before stage separation was scheduled to occur?

Also, if you watch the video, it appears that the first stage has finished firing by T=+2:12. Maybe I'm wrong... It's hard to tell from the camera angle.

__________________
Don't forget about the real world...

dpeilow

They had a 30 second delay on the video and the commentators were using this, so while the counter showed 2:12, the actual launch was at ~2:40. I presume the guy then got a call via normal landline.

If you watch the timer on WMP, you see the launch occurs at 14 seconds and the staging at 2:51.

Chris H.

Dave,

here is a link to the original webcast:

YouTube - SpaceX Falcon 1, Flight 3 attempted launch part 2

This shows mission time in the upper right corner. Launch was at T=0:00. Last image from the vehicle is at T=+2:12. The commentator reports "We are hearing from the launch control centre that there has been an anomaly on the vehicle..." at T=+2:31, eight seconds before stage separation was due to occur. Add to this the time taken for launch control to receive this information from the vehicle, and then to convey the information to the commentator, and you are looking at a failure occurring at least 15 seconds before stage separation was scheduled to occur. So, perhaps stage separation occurred prematurely... who knows?

__________________
Don't forget about the real world...

dpeilow

Chris,

I hear what you are saying, and it took a while to get my head around it too, but I don't think there is any funny business going on.

I understand there was a 30 second delay on the video between Kwajalein and the commentators in CA. So, whilst the video stops at T+2:12, the mission was actually at T+2:42. This was ample time to get a phone call to the commentary team (perhaps this line was open anyway?).

What I meant above was, if you look at the Windows Media Player counter on the official SpaceX file, T0 occurs at 14 seconds (there is no overlayed timer in the video, but that is when it lifts from the pad) and the staging is at 2:51 on the video, which equates to T+2:37 on mission time. The latter is probably my margin of error.

Hope that clarifies things!

Chris H.

Dave,

thanks for the clarification. I neglected to thank you for the pictures and reportage from the BIMS & Goodwood, they were excellent. Thanks.

__________________
Don't forget about the real world...