Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount

Administration Split On Europe Invasion

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan

Pot, Kettle On Line Two...

Allies Seize Paris

The Natural

Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics

Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit

Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff

A New Beginning

My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
Tim Blair
James Lileks Bleats
Virginia Postrel
Kausfiles
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Samizdata
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)

Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« New Way To Hedge | Main | Post Mortem »

SpaceX Update

[Note: I've moved this post to the top until 6 PM Eastern, so scroll down for potential new content]

Here's a link for a live webcast of the SpaceX launch in less than two hours (via Tom Merkle).

[Update at 2:42 PM EST]

They're picking up the pace on the launch sequence now. They have a pretty long checklist, it sounds like.

[Update at 3:16 PM EST]

Uh oh. They're currently fourteen minutes into an unplanned hold (no explanation yet as to why). I wonder how much slack they have, or if this intrinsically delays the launch?

[Update at 3:26 PM EST]

A recovery boat has wandered into an area in the drop zone that's off limits. They're moving it and will be back into the count shortly. Good to hear that it's not a technical problem.

[Update at 2:37 PM EST]

Aaaarrrgghhh.

Not a problem with the launch, but the cabinet people just arrived to unload them into the garage, so I may miss the launch while supervising them. Good luck, if so.

[Update at 4:08 PM EST]

Picking up the count, with a new scheduled launch of 5:30 PM EST

[Update about 4:30 PM EST]

I've moved this thread to the top until 6 PM, so if you see it, you can scroll down for newer material. Also, there's a live discussion going on over at Free Republic.

[Update at 5 PM]

Starting to see what looks like LOX boiloff vapor from the top of the vehicle.

[Update at about T-10 minutes]

They just finished the poll. "Clear to launch."

[Update a minute or so before]

I'm noticing a couple-minute delay on the webcast, so it may launch before we actually see it.

[A little after 5:30 EST]

It seems to have gotten off the pad, but my image is frozen on one of the on-board cameras. It seems to have dropped the webcast.

It looked like a good launch, as far as I could see, before we lost the feed, but that was only for a few seconds, and what looked like a couple hundred feet of altitude at most. I guess we'll have to wait for word from SpaceX as to what happened during the remainder of the trajectory. I have to say that it's a little unnerving to lose contact like that. I'm wondering if SpaceX cut it off because it was showing something untoward. Here's hoping for the best, though.

[Update a couple minutes later]

The people at Free Republic who retained the stream longer than me reported blue sky and clouds, but also rolling before the webcast cut off. That could be part of the normal trajectory, but I can't think of any reason for a symmetric vehicle to do a deliberate roll maneuver during ascent, so it remains unsettling.

[Update at 5:43 PM EST]

Vehicle lost, according to Gwynne Shotwell. Probably range safety destruct.

I'll post more when I know more.

Schade.

Scheisse.

[Update shortly after 6 PM EST]

Word travels fast these days. The BBC already has the story.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 24, 2006 06:00 PM

Comments

I doubt you'll miss the launch, as it's still on hold as of 10 minutes ago (3:45 EST), and they've said that, when they DO re-start the countdown, it'll be at T minus 1h 15m. If it takes them THAT long to unload all the cabinets, you have more to worry about than missing the launch...

Posted by John Breen III at March 24, 2006 01:19 PM

Go Falcon! Best of luck and here's a virtual toast to your success!

Posted by Aleta Jackson at March 24, 2006 02:09 PM

Well, it lifted off but I lost the streaming video at T+10 seconds. Let's hope that was all that was lost.

Posted by Larry J at March 24, 2006 02:58 PM

"It launched. It really launched.
Holy shit."

from Kimbal Musk's blog

Posted by bruce Hoult at March 24, 2006 02:58 PM

I lost my connection too. I just hope it's due to something other than a problem with the launch.

Nice to see it go, though. Capitalism at it's finest!

Bob

Posted by Bob at March 24, 2006 02:59 PM

Spectacular!

Posted by Lee Valentine at March 24, 2006 03:00 PM

Yup, lost feed too. Holding breath over here.

Posted by Kevin Parkin at March 24, 2006 03:01 PM

"Friday 24 March, 2:40 pm PST, 10:40 am Kwaj time
LOSS OF VEHICLE! No details yet, but it looks like the launch has failed."

http://www.outofthecradle.net/archives/2006/03/falcon-1-maiden-launch/

Posted by at March 24, 2006 03:04 PM

Might want to hold off the celebration a little though. I lost the feed too, but before it went out there seemed to be excessive maneuvering going on, along with more sky than I like to see from a rear looking camera. Don't know yet, holding my breath too.

Posted by Tim at March 24, 2006 03:04 PM

crap :-(

Oh, and that anonymous post was me -- forgot to enter the details in my haste

Posted by bruce Hoult at March 24, 2006 03:05 PM

Wikipedia is saying the vehicle was destroyed several seconds after launch. Take that info for what it's worth.

Posted by phocion at March 24, 2006 03:05 PM

Serious bummer. Guess they'll just have to try again! Be interesting to see if this is spun as a "major setback" to the private space industry.

Posted by Bob at March 24, 2006 03:07 PM

In the final instance I had connection it looked like the rocket was tilting over rapidly, with the engines barely burning. First stage burnout was scheduled for 169 seconds, and this was long before that.

I'm worried.

Posted by Chris Thiessen at March 24, 2006 03:09 PM

Well, logically, it shouldn't be, because this was surely because of some definite, fixable engineering problem, and that's hardly reason to hold a grudge against an entire indistry. But then again, who ever said investors or the general public were logical?

Posted by Nick B. at March 24, 2006 03:10 PM

> Be interesting to see if this is spun as a
> "major setback" to the private space industry.

No more or less than the loss of the first Delta III. To a first order approximation, both of those first flights were very similar.

Mike

Posted by Michael Kent at March 24, 2006 03:10 PM

"Friday 24 March, 2:41 pm PST, 10:41 am Kwaj time
Gwynne Shotwell of SpaceX just announced “We did lose the vehicle.” She has no more information at this point, and the media teleconference has been ended early"

No way it's a major setback. As we all know, it's endemic to first (or any) flights of disintegrating totem poles.

Posted by bruce Hoult at March 24, 2006 03:11 PM

MSNBC reports vehicle lost as well.

Posted by at March 24, 2006 03:11 PM

"Friday 24 March, 2:46 pm PST, 10:46 am Kwaj time
“Clearly this is a setback. But we are in this for the long haul. We will proceed with follow-up information as we learn it.” - Gwyenne Shotwell, vice president of business development."

Posted by bruce Hoult at March 24, 2006 03:11 PM

Probably the thrust termination for some reason. Bummer.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at March 24, 2006 03:29 PM

Been there, done that.

"My advice is, start drinking heavily."

John Belushi, as Bluto, in Animal House

Posted by Jim Bennett at March 24, 2006 03:46 PM

As I recall, the Ariane 5 made a nice large explosion on its maiden flight. And it was worth a hell of a lot more.

Posted by Cervus at March 24, 2006 04:03 PM

Phooey.

Posted by Phil Fraering at March 24, 2006 04:12 PM

video of the Falcon launch here...

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1950&posts=1#M27148

starts t-10sec until impact with ocean. free membership in nasaspaceflight forum is necessary...

Posted by blueguitarbob at March 24, 2006 04:38 PM

I am so sorry. :-(

Posted by Aleta Jackson at March 24, 2006 04:38 PM

Not related, but found this at Dean Esmay's place.

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

bores me, but if there is any other info on it, sounds like sumpin up rands road.

Sucks about the launch, they should have continued the cast showing the whole thing up to the point of failure. That is a thing that bugs me, they are scrubbing the record that we know they have, and could share, but the blacked it out. Guys like bossman here should be able to see what was going on, and the rest of us should have been allowed to hear what was said in the room. If SpaceX wants to court the public with these live casts, they should actually follow through and show the whole gig. Christ, Rand sat there scratching lines in the arms of his chair waiting for the flogging launch, SpaceX owes him some of the image info.

Posted by wickedpinto at March 24, 2006 04:55 PM

As someone who had a payload on a ballistically implanted reef (otherwise known as a launch vehicle) before, I send my regards to SpaceX and wish them the best on recovery.

Also add launchers like the Conestoga III to those who did not make it past the reef stage.

The loss hurts all of us who are interested in commercial space in that it makes the investment class nervous when someone puts a huge chunk of their own money into something and then it goes awry.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 24, 2006 05:52 PM

As we used to say at Martin Space Launch Systems - no bucks, no Buck Rogers. For those of you who expected a first launch success for a new vehicle - sorry, odds are against it. What happened is comparable with the experience of many other rockets. Bring more money, figure out what went wrong and do it again until it works. That's the way the business is. The great news is these guys cost less to blow up than other classes of rockets.

Posted by RKV at March 24, 2006 06:09 PM

Not to worry. I've long been a fan of the Atlas, perhaps due to my age. Its early years were fraught with failure, and the failures were often more spectacular than the successes. At a certain point in mid-1959 it had a record of 12 successes and 13 failures, which put it at under .500. But it went on to become a great workhorse of the Space Age, and by the time of its 582nd and last flight in February 2005, it went out in fine fashion with an incredible string of 76 straight successful launches.

(I speak of the original steel balloon tank Atlas. The Atlas V is an entirely different breed of puppy. But so far it's doing OK too.)

Still, we should be able to see the full video. If nothing else good comes of it, at least a failed (unmanned) launch can be a source of entertainment for us ground-bound observers--and even people who have no interest in space.

Posted by at March 24, 2006 06:13 PM

According to spaceflightnow.com the problem was with an external thermal blanket added to the launch system recently to avoid excess LOX boiloff during holds. The blanket was fastened to the rocket with velcro and designed to rip off on liftoff. However, it looks like the blanket remained attached or partially attached during launch. If this is the case then this almost certainly led to aerodynamic instability in the vehicle (and excess weight, of course) transitioning to loss of attitude control authority and then, probably, range safety destruction.

Posted by Robin Goodfellow at March 24, 2006 07:11 PM

If that is the case, it should be a quick and easy fix.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 24, 2006 07:18 PM

Spacex was not the only commercial space casualty today.

Here is a good article that Oberg did on our efforts to save Arabsat 4a.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3217961/

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 24, 2006 07:28 PM

This is cool, cuz it is all commercial driven, but whatever happened to the small payload piggy back thing? what was it called? the pegasus? the one that was releast from a plain in flight and then launched from whatever altittude into low orbit?

Seems to me the BEST commercial method is to explore that first, after all, there are a LOT of planes currently WAY under payload, that could be used as a platform as a proffit method for the exploration of larger payloads.

I'm not talking like a guy who knows, but if there are a lot of near empty cargo flights, then there is a LOT of energy potential that can be used as an intermediary to real commercial space endeavours PRIOR to direct competition with national projects. Not to mention the midget missiles can be used at a far reduced cost for experimental purposes.

Posted by wickedpinto at March 24, 2006 07:35 PM

Sorry to read that Dennis, you will get your chance yet!

BTW, the right link to the Jim Oberg Arabsat article is:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11999597/

Yours is to Alan Boyle.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 24, 2006 07:55 PM

Is there any word on whether anything is recoverable (abort is engine cutoff, not C-4), or is it assumed that there was still too much fuel on board for anything to have survived splashdown?

Dang, I can't believe that the little blanket that they jerry-rigged onto the thing caused it all to fail. Good news, that's an easy fix, bad news, that's one HECK of a way to lose your first rocket.

Posted by Big D at March 24, 2006 08:09 PM

It's actually fairly typical for a quick last minute "easy fix" to cause massive failure in complex projects. Due to, of course, completely short-circuiting the design/construction/testing flow. Saying "it's too simple to fail" is one of the surest way to get something to bite you in the ass that I can think of.

Posted by Robin Goodfellow at March 24, 2006 09:02 PM

I think it looks like the engine failed - the nozzle burned through, or something like that. Everything seems fine until there's a big plume or orange flame and then it goes crazy. Anyone have a theory on how the blanket could have caused that?

Posted by Eric at March 24, 2006 09:57 PM

My condolences to all involved. It is, however, continuing evidence that rocket powered orbital flight is still an expensive and failure prone technology.

Posted by K at March 25, 2006 12:21 AM

Extremely Unladylike Phrases.

I feel it for the Cadets at the USAF Academy, who have lost their satellite. The Falcon crew can at least learn some lessons, but for the cadets, it's all downside. As a sometime satellite avionics engineer and former teacher at the Australian Defence Force Academy, I know how they must feel.

For the Rocket guys, there'll be another launch, another day, and eventually success. But for the cadets who built FalconSat-2, they'll have graduated, their chance to see a bird they spent part of their lives building fly into orbit... gone.

More Extremely Unladylike and blisteringly Australian phrases.

My condolences and sympathies to them.

Posted by Zoe E Brain at March 25, 2006 12:46 AM

K- Re: "failure prone" have you ever engineered and built anything in the real world? In reality, this IS typical behavior in aerospace i.e. the first few shots have problems. The issue is what happens after that. In the right situation (e.g. Atlas or Titan) you make improvements and get better as you go. In the wrong situation, you run out of money and give up. This isn't like the shuttle where you only build a few of the final stages.

Posted by RKV at March 25, 2006 04:59 AM

I think it looks like the engine failed - the nozzle
burned through, or something like that. Everything seems fine
until there's a big plume or orange flame and then it goes
crazy. Anyone have a theory on how the blanket could have
caused that?

Possibly a section of thermal blanket whipped around and
hit the nozzle and broke it or blocked the plume long
enough to heat the nozzle up to the point of failure.

Posted by Mark Amerman at March 25, 2006 06:06 AM

Actually, the success rate for first launches of new rockets is better than 50%. It is not high, but it is wrong to say that "most" rockets fail during their first launch.

The poster who noted the impact on the USAFA cadets is right on the money. The Academy has problems getting cadets interested in space as opposed to aviation, because they cannot see any immediate benefits for them. Go to flight school and you can climb into a cockpit relatively quickly. But go the space route and you might spend years working on a satellite only to have a launch provider put it in the Navy's territory. You can bet that the Air Force just lost some future space officers with this failure.

Posted by David Mason at March 25, 2006 07:25 AM

Is there any word on whether anything is recoverable (abort is engine cutoff, not C-4), or is it assumed that there was still too much fuel on board for anything to have survived splashdown

What is recoverable in terms of Material, is insignificant, at least in this situations. All instruments were active, until destruction, and radio info travels at appr, the speed of light. Film and video, and catastrophic pictures are meaningless.

I only supported the Dissemination of video material so that men like rand could break it down for us in the MOMENT, NOW, we will be given REAL info, based on the ability of our communications to travel at ABout the speed of light.

Rand? don't let us down.

Posted by wickedpinto at March 25, 2006 08:38 PM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?