Talk:Falcon 1

Archive1

Launch aborted

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/03/20/new.rocket.ap/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.187.172 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That was yesterday's attempt. They are planning to try again tonight (but the launch will occur just after midnight, so it is actually tomorrow). --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reagan Test Site

I removed the note that said this launch would be from the RTS, the launch will be from the Omelek Island which is apparently owned by SpaceX. Does anyone have more information on this?--Duk 07:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The link above must be wrong, see [1], thanks to sci.space.policy --Duk 22:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Postponement

At IAF in Fukuoka last week Elon Musk announced that the launch would be postponed by a few weeks, probably in December.Hektor 23:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect info?

The article now says that "First stage burn lasts about 2:49 seconds.". Should that rather be minutes, that is, 2 minutes and 49 seconds? Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Fixed --GW_Simulations 22:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Destroyed?

Something which should be made clear is if the vehicle was destroyed in the firsth launch failure, sunk, damaged, recovered, etc.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Privately funded?

How can it be "...the world's first privately funded and developed liquid-fueled space launch vehicle." When the Falcon series is part of the US Government sponsored Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program and so far all the customers have been segments of the US Government DARPA, US Air Force Academy, Naval Research Laboratory, et cetera. This being the case it is no more the result of private funding than radio, radar, the jet engine, computers or the internet. LamontCranston 17:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• The Falcon rockets are not part of the EELV. --Duk 18:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

there is a "lol" in the first paragrpah i think, that i cant find when i try and edit it.

The State=1, fully privately owned companies=0. Everybody wins.

How do you figured "fully privately owned companies=0"? SpaceX and the sub-contractors get the fat government money and SpaceX gets the patents to any new technologies developed. Win/Win for the government & privately owned companies. That’s how it’s been for a long time indeed. The one who really gets a score of 0 are the American people: they did not agree to this, the money was taken through chicanery and deceit and most importantly they will have to pay if they want to benefit from any new technologies developed – development they paid for in the first place. Again, that’s how it’s been for a long time indeed. LamontCranston 10:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're confused. Falcon was developed entirely on Elon Musk's pocketbook. There hasn't been a dime of government subsidy or contract for the R&D stuff other than the Falcon bid to participate in the (confusingly, similarly named) DARPA FALCON rapid light launch capability conventional warhead small ICBM program, which got them about $6 or so million out of the $100 or so million spent, and bought this first launch attempt.

Slightly over half the announced customers are not the US government; Bigelow Aerospace is taking one of two Falcon 9's on order at this time, SpaceDev has a Falcon 1, the Malaysian government has a Falcon 1 (the third in the launch schedule, in fact), MDA corp and the Swedish Space Corporation also have Falcon 1's on order.

Please research more and rhetoric less. Georgewilliamherbert 07:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if Falcon 1 is privately funded, I don't see how it can be "the world's first" given that Sea Launch has been in the business for more than a decade. -- Hux 07:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sealaunch uses a lot of Russian technology that was government funded, see Zenit rocket. --Duk 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a reference for private funding of the Falcon 1 development. I also reverted an edit that noted (in the edit summary) that the Atlas V was privately funded. The EELV project gave at least a hundred million dollars of government money for the Atlas V and Delta IV development. --Duk 17:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

SpaceShipOne

The Falcon 1 lead currently reads: "It is the world's first privately funded and developed liquid-fueled space launch vehicle".

Then what's Scaled Composites White Knight? Because the White Knight article says it "is a jet-powered carrier aircraft used to launch the SpaceShipOne," and jet fuel is liquid.--M@rēino 19:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

White Knight doesn't go into space. — Nicholas (reply) @

The First Stage of Falcon-1 is analagous to Scaled-Composites' White Knight. Does the Falcon-1 first stage go into space.Martin Cordon 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It comes close. According to the the SpaceX website, stage 1 separates at 297,000 feet. This is about 56 miles or just shy of the border for space (usually consider at 100km, or ~60 miles). I believe White Knight only goes up to about 40,000 feet. --StuffOfInterest 16:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If the Falcon-1 first stage separated at 40,000 feet would it still be considered a space launch vehicle?Martin Cordon 16:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

To answer the original question. If the first stage of Falcon-1 is analagous to White Knight and the second stage is analagous to SpaceShipOne then the White Knight/SpaceShipOne combination should be viewed as a whole for fare comparison. Since SpaceShipOne has a hybrid rocket motor burning in part a solid fuel it is not a wholly liquid fuelled system. Martin Cordon 16:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The White Knite + SpaceShipOne are not really comparable to the Falcon 1. SpaceShipOne doesn't enter orbit. The energy required to reach space is only a tiny fraction of the energy required to reach orbital velocity. --Duk 17:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but the original question referred to space launch vehicles, it did not specify obital launch vehicles. It is generally accepted that the White Knight + SpaceShipOne combination is a space launch vehicle. Martin Cordon 18:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good point. I see the article now specifies "orbital launch vehicle" instead of "space vehicle", which seems accurate. --Duk 21:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Payload

What was the payload on the lastest failed flight? The one that crashed through the roof? The article does not make it clear.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Image removed

I removed the image Image:Falcon 1 compare.gif that's on Commons and is to be deleted for being a copyvio. If you want it back, use the image description page, fetch the old version and upload as fair use on this Wikipedia. / Fred-Chess 12:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Payload recovered ?

• I think that the "payload recovered" statement should be modified because I find it extremely misleading. When you read that you get the impression it fell down nicely under a parachute. Of course the payload was damaged beyond repair. Hektor 15:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

First launch failure (section)

I rewrote this section. Had been kind of an chronological accumulation of news reports and quotes and citations, some of which were out of date. --Duk 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Outcome of Second Launch

The current outcome is 'Failure'. Elon Musk considers it successful, with 90% of the technical challenges proven. (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon/f2/status.html) Should 'Outcome' reflect shortcomings in the proposed mission plan, or the company's statements?

~IDS 02:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Performance of second stage was not nominal. Elon is rightly happy about the success of the first stage, but at the time of this writing he seems not to know the trajectory of his second stage or payload. Losing track of the payload (and likely dumping it back into the atmosphere) just can't be considered success, can it? Or, "How far can PR 'spin' get ya?" Sdsds 06:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it similar to software in how a beta version with a few bugs left over is still considered mostly to be a success? It would be interesting to see some old press releases from NASA way back when they were first developing rockets to see how they portrayed their work. Mithridates 06:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at Ariane 5 entry, similar problem (launcher not reaching the right orbit) are called partial failure. I propose to adopt this term. Hektor 10:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --StuffOfInterest 12:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Perspective

When the Delta 4 and Atlas V rockets were being introduced their manufacturers went out of their way to note how much of the design and systems were already flight proven. (the Delta 4 second stage was derived from the Delta III, the Atlas V used the Centaur upper stage and so on...) This points out how risky and difficult new rocket designs are to get working. The Ariane 5 also suffered failure on its first two launches (its development took 10 years and cost €7 billion).

To put this into perspective, SpaceX started with nothing and created an all new design - from the launch facilities to electronics and software and, of course, the hardware and company itself. The second launch failure, according to Musk, seems to be a simple control issue from a possible leak or roll control malfunction, while the riskiest and most difficult features worked and are now flight proven. Add to this the $100 million that the Delta 4 and the Atlas V got from the government for development, while the Falcon 1 was almost completely funded without government money, and SpaceX has done a remarkable thing. A quote from Musk about new designs: "I think they had something like 12 Atlas failures before the 13th one was success. To get this far on our second launch being an all-new rocket -- new main engine, new first stage, new second stage engine, new second stage, new fairing, new launch pad system, with so many new things -- to have gotten this far is great."

--Duk 16:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Partial" failure

I think we should be clear in language here. The second launch of the Falcon I had the goal of achieving orbit, which it did not, it is therefore not a partial failure, but just a failure. A "partial failure/success" would be a successful orbital launch of a payload, however in a wrong orbit and the payload itself manages to be useful either in the different orbit or can adjust its orbit by its own thrusters and reach the intended orbit. Falcon I cannot be considered a partial success nor partial failure of an orbital launch vehicle, no matter what SpaceX is stating, because it did not place its dummy payload into orbit. Themanwithoutapast 20:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have commented above, but I will add my two cents here as well... The usage Themanwithoutapast is using (partial failures are shots which reach orbit, but substantially the wrong orbit for some reason) is industry standard and what I support. This launch was a launch failure. It was most of a demonstration success... the point was to see how the launcher behaved, rather than orbit a real payload per se... but it was not a launch success or partial success. Georgewilliamherbert 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys should at least make it clear that SpaceX and Musk are calling this a 95% success in proving Falcon 1's flight systems (source) and how they in general are characterizing it as a great success. You may think it is PR spin, and feel that in your judgement it was a failure, but this is original research unless you find a good source to attribute that judgement to. And it is not really NPOV if you completely don't mention SpaceX's take on the yesterday's launch, and looking through the article it isn't in there. Even though I personally feel they're maybe overstating the success of the launch a bit too, it needs to be mentioned.

And the "Failure" heading in the launch log definitely is too strong with a claim that is not uncontroversial (i.e. that SpaceX would dispute). I changed it "did not reach orbit" since that is a bit more focussed on exactly where it failed and something that SpaceX doesn't seem to dispute, and doesn't have the qualifier "failure". I'll see if I can add a bit to the second flight heading to reflect how both media and SpaceX are characterizing the launch. --Codemonkey 22:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The flight failed to place its payload into orbit. In the context of our chart it should be recorded as a failure. --Duk 22:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

But that wasn't even the part of the primary goals according to the statement on SpaceX's website put up there after the launch. It was to test a fast launch and gather data, according to them. Labelling it "failure" is a pretty absolute value judgement, especially with the official line being that it was a success by and large. And without a good and solid sourcing for that fairly absolute judgement of it being a failure, I can't see it holding up properly to no original research and NPOV. If there is some sort of standardized way of judging this (which is what you seem to be implying, as well as George who mentioned "industry standard"), and someone applied this standard than that could be sourced and the article reasonable can call it a failure (and maybe explicitly mention the standards). But with SpaceX's official line being so far off with the "failure" label, this is a controversial statement to make in a WP article, and should be carefully sourced, and written down in a NPOV way.

If it really is that obvious that this is a failure by industry standards, those standards and someone applying those standards in a source-able way to this launch and calling it a failure shouldn't be that hard to find, right?--Codemonkey 23:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Failed to place payload into its orbit" - no OR there! I think SpaceX has every reason to be proud and happy with the launch, especially if they can positively identify the snafu and easily fix it. But the payload wasn't placed into its orbit. --Duk 23:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

""Failed to place payload into its orbit" - no OR there!" No, but the point is that the "Outcome - Failure" kind of loses some distinction and replaces it with a more absolute, and unsourced, statement, which it does by a standard that is not made explicit. If the article keeps to making purely observational statements about the outcome then there is no problem, but if the article wants to make a value judgement on the outcome (which otherwise is a totally valid thing to do) it should at least make explicit the standard by which it is deemed a failure and be careful in sourcing.--Codemonkey 23:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (I wrote this reply before George's was there, editing this in after edit conflict error)

Those standards are used in, for example, International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems (Iaskowitz, Hopkins, and Hopkins, latest ed 2004).

Elon and Gwynne Shotwell are being rather careful to say "test success" rather than "launch success" because they know the definitions as well as anyone else in the industry. The statement isn't controversial or a NPOV issue.

Disclaimer: I've had ongoing discussions with SpaceX about one of my businesses purchasing launch(es) from them, in particular related to the NASA COTS project, though we haven't had any active progress in the last six or so months on the project as we didn't make the cut for the NASA funding. Despite the "launch" failure I agree with them that as a test flight, they got good results for 90-95% of the data points. I need to go back and re-run some capsule survivability scenarios with this failure's specifics, but we still would likely use them as a launch provider if the business situation changes and the project moves forwards again. Georgewilliamherbert 23:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I feel like I'm a bit out of my depth here. ;) However, I still think it would be nice if the qualifier could be sourced, and the used standards for judging success or failure made explicit. For one, someone who isn't familiar with the International Reference Guide you mentioned (like me) wouldn't get much useful information out of just reading the "failure" qualifier in the article. Also, what of those two would be the proper qualifier in this case; "test failure" or "launch failure"? --Codemonkey 23:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)