RazakSAT satellite is working; Falcon I launch comments

Great news! Was going to watch the launch on webcast, but they delayed it until it interfered with my alotted telescope time for my research. But you can bet I'll watch the video!

I hope this Falcon 1 launch is a harbinger of what the Falcon 9 launch will be. Here's hoping SpaceX gets COTS-D!

Posted by Rick Boozer at 07/14/09 07:57:32

I'm glad to see a solid success from SpaceX. Don't get Pollyannish though.
-I wouldn't characterize the pre-launch as routine and boring, although they appear to have a very solid team.

I think they came about 15 seconds away at the end there from the range screens freeze causing an abort (that's on the Army, not SpaceX). The 'Helium glitch' nearly sent them out of the window as well, but these are things that happen in every launch.

-Beyond the Merlins and some pieces of the avionics, there really aren't many components that are common between the two rockets. So I would reserve judgement on confidence in F9 until after the first launch attempt.

-I think the Augustine panel will take the same tack. It would be foolhardy for the panel to endorse COTS-D as a realistic alternative just a few months before the first launch attempt --epecially if the first attempt fails.

Shelby won't feel enay pressure until the first COTS flight successfully launches.

Posted by tom at 07/14/09 08:39:16

"/-- Will become routine. No reason they can't do this repeatedly"

That is the hardest part. Anyone can design and build a rocket, doing over and over again successfully is the kicker.

Posted by me at 07/14/09 08:59:56

This isn't technically the "first privately financed liquid-fueled rocket to put a satellite into orbit" if you count the previous SpaceX launch, as there was a vehicle put together by SpaceX with some rudimentary telemetry... essentially a private space version of Sputnik 1.

Even so, this is the first time SpaceX has done this for a paying customer, and that is indeed a big deal. I know SpaceX won't speak ill of its customers, but it seems like most of the delays on this particular launch had to do with issues related to the customer more than problems with the vehicle. Yes, there have been some issues that did come up, and I'm not entirely sure how significant those issues were (Elon Musk is certainly going to downplay them), but on the whole it did prove to be a relatively smooth ride.

SpaceX is clearly learning new things on every flight, and at least for the Falcon 1 they seem to have a maturing launch system that deserves legitimate praise and attention by potential customers. As for how this will translate to the Falcon 9, there certainly are many lessons from the Falcon 1 experience that can translate to the Falcon 9, no the least of which is flight experience with the Merlin engines. I certainly don't expect the same mistakes that led to the failure of the early flights for Falcon 1 to be repeated, even though there might be some gremlins they haven't anticipated by trying to scale up the rocket for the Falcon 9.

At the very least, SpaceX has one more successful launch to add to their "launch rate". They proved it could be done.... again. That is the kind of confidence builder that does help in terms of people trying to invest into this company, which is what commercial space enterprises need on the whole as well.

Posted by Robert Horning at 07/14/09 09:13:16

Re: me

Of course you're right that doing things over and over with consistent good quality is a major challenge.

But "Anyone can design and build a rocket" sounds like moving goalposts to me. The history of private space is full of companies that failed at this step.

The only truly private companies that succeeded so far are orbital and spacex.

Posted by anonymous at 07/14/09 09:26:32

"Anyone can design and build a rocket"?

To paraphrase a certain caveman: Uh... what?

Posted by Patrick at 07/14/09 11:13:21

Hi Tom,

- One person's set of generally positive remarks is someone else's Pollyanna.

- I've followed the F1 launches since the first one and this was by far the most straight-forward. No multiple attempts over multiple days. No hot-fire aborts. I'm sure there will continue to be occasional glitches but the launches will gradually reach the sort of "operationally responsive" mode that was the original goal.

- I'll defer to SpaceX people who often talk about a high degree of commonality among the two launchers. Even where components like the tanks are not identical, they are built with the same techniques, e.g. friction wielding, and have various sub-components in common.

- Raising confidence is not the same as being confident. The F9 obviously still has to prove itself. I'm just saying that the SpaceX people can have higher confidence that the F9 will work the first time than they did after, say, the third F1 launch.

- I believe it is foolish for NASA not to award COTS-D funding to SpaceX. The amount of money involved is a tiny fraction of what is being wasted on Ares I/Orion and the pay-off if successful would be huge. From the success of the F1 launches to the successful passing of design reviews and other COTS milestones, there is sufficient reason to see the F9/Dragon as a viable program that has a reasonable chance of success.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 07/14/09 11:47:43

Clark,
Pollyanna was a poor word choice. I meant more along the lines of "but don't present it as more than it is," but there's no short way to say that. My apologies if it sounded rude.

Of course the SpaceX team is quick to point to commonality where they can--the "clean sheet" nature of the F9 is both a blessing and a curse, but on shortened timescales and with high political visibility, it is more a curse, which is why they are so quick to point to the areas of commonality.

Of all those, clearly the highest risk item on any new rocket system is the main engine propulsion, and they have retired over half of that risk by testing single merlin-1Cs on the F1, giving a high confidence the first stage propulsion will work as designed. The second stage engine is a new version and starting mode, so it's significantly riskier.

The odds of everything on F9 working together all correctly the first time are objectively low.

I will be extremely impressed if they are able to put together a first F9 launch attempt by October, and even more impressed if it makes it all the way to SECO. But that's a very hard thing to do on a first launch.

I don't take anything away from SpaceX when I say that. And I think the Augustine commission would agree.

Posted by tom at 07/14/09 13:17:36

I guess I would also add that even if the Augustine committee recommends killing Ares 1, they will probably push NASA towards a more DIRECT 2.0 two-launch method, not a COTS- type answer.

In that case, MSFC would still get lots of J2X and upperstage development and it'd be even more lopsided towards Alabama & Lousiana vs. Utah from the current structure so Shelby's interest in killing COTS would likely intensify.

Posted by tom at 07/14/09 13:22:07

Hi Tom,

"... My apologies if it sounded rude."

No, not at all. Happy to have a give and take discussion.

"The odds of everything on F9 working together all correctly the first time are objectively low."

I agree. Should be considered simply as a test flight but unfortunately, many will treat it as make or break WRT manned operations.

"...they will probably push NASA towards a more DIRECT 2.0 two-launch method, not a COTS- type answer."

Sounds like they are leaning that way. I'd prefer an EELV vs SpaceX competition but I'll gladly take DIRECT over Ares I/V.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 07/14/09 14:24:23

If the first F9 launch fails, it is highly likely that, as with F1, Musk will simply carry on. I believe he is working toward HSF no matter what happens to COTS--each successful launch will bring in more commercial orders and with commercial orders comes money that is just as good as NASA's. And a Bigelow inflatable is as viable a target for rendezvous & docking as the ISS.

Some people are saying Musk will bail at the first nice offer, but I'm really starting to believe he is who he says he is--a believer. As long as he keeps 51% of the company, he's not going to sell out to the big boys.

Posted by Patrick at 07/14/09 14:35:14

I would like to hear an explanation for the pitching that has taken place on both launches at staging...

Posted by Patrick at 07/14/09 14:36:32

"That is the hardest part. Anyone can design and build a rocket, doing over and over again successfully is the kicker."

My sarcasm detector is glowing but I'll respond anyway. I would say that just the opposite is true. As indicated by a couple of comments here, it has in fact been extremely difficult for anyone to get a rocket to orbit. Only two privately financed companies and a relatively small number of countries have done it. After some initial failures, most vehicles then do fine.

Good quality control is not a trivial issue but hardly impossible for private firms. I've not seen any indication that quality control is low at SpaceX, quite the contrary. Even the F1 failures were not due to quality control but to specific design issues that were dealt with by specific design changes. (The corrosion problem in the first launch was not due to the use of cheap nuts but because they chose the wrong type for the Kwajalein environment.)

Orbital had 3 failures in the first 6 Pegasus XL flights (or, put another way, 3 of first 14 Pegasus/Pegasus XL flights) and then 26 straight successes. I think SpaceX has a good chance to match this with the F1.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 07/14/09 14:43:47

My take on the pitching is aerodynamic drag. I won't go into why the stack starts to roll and pitch somewhat at MECO (don't understand it completely either), but when the stages separate, 2nd stage pitch rate increases. During Demo 2 (which due to an error staged lower in the atmosphere), that pitch was so strong it caused Kestrel nozzle to hit the interstage.

Posted by Gordan at 07/14/09 14:46:32

Gordan,
I wonder if it could be a G&C algorithm issue.

Tom

Posted by tom at 07/14/09 16:47:55

No, both stages are in a coast phase during staging so no algorithm issues there. Shortly before MECO the rocket sets angle-of-attack to zero while also going into an inertial attitude hold for staging.

Staging imparts this initial roll and pitch rate (again, don't know why - could be Merlin turbopump unloading momentum, although that seems a bit stretched) and then when 2nd stage separates, it's no longer at zero A-o-A and aerodynamic drag further tries to make it tumble. I guess.

Posted by Gordan at 07/14/09 17:06:32

Gordan, Yes, agree on the cause of the the initial roll and pitch rate (staging for whatever weird reason), but it continues for quite a while after the Kestrel fires. Shouldn't the GNC system be able to bring it down faster than that, drag or no drag?

It almost looks like hunting.

Posted by tom at 07/15/09 17:21:02

The pitching at staging could be due to the turbopumps decelerating, with some resulting gyroscopic precession. Then some inertial cross coupling comes into play to couple pitch and roll.

There isn't much aerodynamic or other reaction forces to damp or mask it at that point in the trajectory.

Posted by Rick at 07/15/09 18:46:37

I think it's time to stop being NASA bashers and start figuring out how to fund Musk's Mars missions privately.

Posted by Sam Dinkin at 07/15/09 22:33:34

Oh that's easy Sam.

Step 1.: Bash NASA ^_^

Posted by Habitat Hermit at 07/15/09 23:04:30

Your comment: Name: Website: E-mail:

Enter the string of characters appearing in the picture: Remember Me