Even though I can't see the launch, all the very best.

"Alan Erskine" <alan.erskine at (no spam) bigpond.com> wrote in news:UD9lk.25133
$IK1.11144 at (no spam) news-server.bigpond.net.au:

Even though I can't see the launch, all the very best.




Looks like a launch failure.

There was visible roll oscillation after the first minute, but
during first stage operation. Video went off and SpaceX's
announcers don't have a clue.

We'll have to wait for the failure analysis, but I'm guessing
there was a guidance system problem from the oscillations.

--Damon

We'll have to wait for the failure analysis, but I'm guessing
there was a guidance system problem from the oscillations.

--Damon


Damn shame; they've done so much work, they deserve to succeed.

Alan Erskine wrote:

We'll have to wait for the failure analysis, but I'm guessing
there was a guidance system problem from the oscillations.

--Damon


Damn shame; they've done so much work, they deserve to succeed.


Here's a timeline of what was supposed to happen and when:
http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon/003/timeline.html
When the program got going, Elon Musk said he could afford three failed
launches... this is failed launch #3.
I'll bet they'll live to regret trying the second launch inside of a
hour after the aborted one without looking the vehicle over and trying
again tomorrow.
At this point, I'd be looking a bit askance at Falcon 9.

Pat Flannery <flanner at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote in news:b9GdnTY-
X9iVsAjVnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d at (no spam) posted.northdakotatelephone:



Alan Erskine wrote:

We'll have to wait for the failure analysis, but I'm guessing
there was a guidance system problem from the oscillations.

--Damon


Damn shame; they've done so much work, they deserve to succeed.


Here's a timeline of what was supposed to happen and when:
http://spaceflightnow.com/falcon/003/timeline.html
When the program got going, Elon Musk said he could afford three failed
launches... this is failed launch #3.
I'll bet they'll live to regret trying the second launch inside of a
hour after the aborted one without looking the vehicle over and trying
again tomorrow.
At this point, I'd be looking a bit askance at Falcon 9. ;-)

I'd guess the investigation will be looking at the performance of the
new regen version of the Merlin, and at guidance. The roll oscillation
was certainly suspicious but things otherwise looked relatively normal
until the video feed quit.

Possibly the vehicle was off-course, which could have been guidance or
engine malfunction/underperformance. At some point a computer or flight
safety pushes the red button...

Watching the vid of the Ist launch attempt,(haven't got to Launch 2
yet,I'm on dial up etc) seems like there was a party going on in the
background...!! Guess they are being just too "gung ho".......Maybe
the mystery investor is Bill Gates,who might "give" 'em a few
Gidzillions .................? Anyway,what a crying
shame.......................

almostfm.AMSPAY at (no spam) UCKSAY.comcast.net (Scott Stevenson) wrote in
news:489735aa.1381262859 at (no spam) newsgroups.comcast.net:


At about T +4 minutes, you can start to see some oscillation of the
second stage engine bell--it's making small clockwise circles at just
under one rev per second. They didn't seem to get much faster, but
the oscillations certainly got bigger during the remainder of the
flight.

Also, I'm certainly no expert, but at first stage separation, there
seemed to be a lot of yaw in the rocket before the second stage lit.
I don't know if the first stage didn't separate cleanly, or what, but
it just looked odd.

You must have been looking at video of the second launch last year. In
that case, the separation was "dirty" and knocked the upper stage
off-attitude before guidance reasserted control.

On this, the third launch attempt, it was stated that the two
stages completely failed to separate at all, ending the mission. While
I definitely saw roll oscillation during ascent, it was stated that
first stage operation was 'normal' right up to main engine shutdown.
The shutdown was not shown on the video feed, which was apparently
delayed-broadcast.

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 00:15:01 -0500, Damon Hill
damon1SIX1 at (no spam) comcast.netnet> wrote:

almostfm.AMSPAY at (no spam) UCKSAY.comcast.net (Scott Stevenson) wrote in
news:489735aa.1381262859 at (no spam) newsgroups.comcast.net:


At about T +4 minutes, you can start to see some oscillation of the
second stage engine bell--it's making small clockwise circles at just
under one rev per second. They didn't seem to get much faster, but
the oscillations certainly got bigger during the remainder of the
flight.

Also, I'm certainly no expert, but at first stage separation, there
seemed to be a lot of yaw in the rocket before the second stage lit.
I don't know if the first stage didn't separate cleanly, or what, but
it just looked odd.

You must have been looking at video of the second launch last year. In
that case, the separation was "dirty" and knocked the upper stage
off-attitude before guidance reasserted control.

On this, the third launch attempt, it was stated that the two
stages completely failed to separate at all, ending the mission. While
I definitely saw roll oscillation during ascent, it was stated that
first stage operation was 'normal' right up to main engine shutdown.
The shutdown was not shown on the video feed, which was apparently
delayed-broadcast.

Ah, the live broadcast, and grabbed what I thought was the correct
video.

It sounds like I had the right diagnosis, but the wrong patient :-)

take care,
Scott

Anyway, the ashes of Scotty and Gordon Cooper now lie in a watery grave,
along with those of 206 other people.

The headline will read "208 Dead in Rocket Failure".


"We've got guys down in our photo labs working through the night to
put together a genuine photograph."

Define "bottom of the ocean".

I mean LEO is the equivalent of walking out to the sandbar that is hidden at
high tide.

The Moon is perhaps the continental shelf.

But ultimately both are vast, unexplored volumes.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deleteth1s at (no spam) greenms.com> wrote in message
news:8JednSWu0rOUqwXVnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d at (no spam) earthlink.com...
Define "bottom of the ocean".

I mean LEO is the equivalent of walking out to the sandbar that is hidden
at high tide.
The Moon is perhaps the continental shelf.

The continental shelf defines the limit of seas (for instance, off
Queensland, there is the Coral Sea, then it's the Pacific Ocean, which
begins at the edge of the continental shelf).

Define "bottom of the ocean".



Challenger Deep, 11025m? I think only two people have been there.

Besides Prince Namor and Attuma of course.