Talk:Falcon 1/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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

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)

I'm unsatisfied with the current weak language, which leaves the impression that the government had a hand in the development of the rocket. In actual fact, if I recall correctly, the only government money awarded was a very small amount for operational aspects of the rocket, not for development of the rocket itself. I propose that the language be simplified, stating that the Falcon 1 was developed privately, and leaving the determination of the firsts and significance of private development to some other article. As you know, fees for services to the government are not development money. Dschmelzer 16:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"As you know, fees for services to the government are not development money." -> that very much depends on how people look at it. DARPA funded the first two test flights in the amount of USD 15 millions (Musk repeatetly said these were not operational flights but tests as part of their development of the rocket). DARPA did not spend that 15 millions to pay for FalconSAT or for the dummy payload on the second test flight, it funded the test flights in order to reach a goal - more US choices for their rapid response orbital launches of small payloads. In my book, there has never been and probably in the near future won't be any orbital vehicle that is entirely privately developed and privately funded. Themanwithoutapast 21:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that the US Government is the largest single customer for launch services in the world, it's hard to avoid them being one of your customers. That said, a bunch of startups have not sold any government launches to date , (Armadillo, Masten) though they may be doing other development contract related work (XCOR), and there are historical examples (Beal, Rotary Rocket, the original Kistler vehicle before Pioneer Rocketplane bought them). Georgewilliamherbert 00:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what the fact that the US Government is a potential large customer changes here. Falcon I may have cost between 50 and 100 million in development up to now (it is hard to give an exact number, because Falcon 9 is partly using similar hardware). If 15 millions of these costs are paid for by DARPA (even only for "test"-launcheS), this means that the rocket is not entirely privately developed and funded any more, but only largely privately developed and funded. Themanwithoutapast 08:22, 31 May 2007 (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)

Technically speaking a launch vehicle is the rocket, not the carrier aircraft. The carrier aircraft is (AFAIK) analogous to a ground-launched rocket's launch pad (which is part of the launch system, not launch vehiocle); I think this can be justified by the fact that if you take the Pegasus rocket, for example, it could be launched from any sufficient-spec jet aircraft; the launch vehicle is independent of the carrier aircraft. It just happens that there wasn't a suitable aircraft to carry SS1/2 already available, so Scaled built their own. --J. Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:35, 29 July 2008 (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)

Ok, how about we add a sentence at the end of the second flight section that states something like "By industry standards for space launches, such as those laid out in the International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems, the launch is considered a launch failure." That would make me happy as far as explicitness goes, although if at all possible having someone who is applying that standard to the falcon 1 launch to source would be nicer. And then revert the info box and table I changed back to "failure". Would that be a good compromise? I think it would add to both the informativeness, neutrality, and verifiability of the article. --Codemonkey 23:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Are we to change the Ariane 5 page as well then? There are two 'partial failure's there as well and partial failure is part of the template itself. Same for the Saturn V, the Jupiter-C, etc. - they all have partial failures and that was only a quick glance at the pages that link to the infobox. Mithridates 23:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

All of those partial failures reached orbit, but the wrong orbit. They're consistent with the definition as used in the industry and as we're saying we should use here... Ariane 5 second flight got its payload into orbit, but the wrong orbit, and is a partial failure. Falcon 2 second flight didn't reach orbital velocity, didn't go around the earth at least once, and is a launch failure. Georgewilliamherbert 00:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Mithridates 00:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"All up" testing

It is very tempting to make a reference in the Falcon 1 article to the "All up" testing methodology George Mueller used for the Apollo. Mueller short-circuited the von Braun incremental approach to stage-by-stage testing of vehicles and instead put upper stages onto untested lower stages, just in case the lower stage worked well enough to give the upper stage some real-world flight experience. In the case of Falcon 1, von Braun would have waited for a successful test of the Merlin stage before putting up a live Kestrel stage. Had SpaceX used the von Braun approach, this second launch would have been a complete success (of a non-orbital, first-stage-only vehicle). This would have looked better to the actuarial (insurance) accountants. But like Apollo, Falcon 1 has a need to get up soon. Is there anything in the interviews with Musk et al. that would support this hypothesis that they are trading off "success" for immediate experience? Have they used the phrase, "All up" in public? Sdsds 19:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe; it depends on how you interpret the following sentence:

"We could launch sooner, but I want to do another all up vehicle [and] pad review before launch." [2]

I think, in this context, he means "all up" as in "the stack is assembled". -- Rei 23:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point -- he apparently meant "all up" on the pad not "all up" into space. Still it gives me hope that since Musk is using the phrase, it's because he's heard it from others in the organization who are concious advocates of this approach. Sdsds 02:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Better than we thought

It appears the rocket got to within one minute of its desired goal, and it was just the video that cut out when it did.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5056

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has noted that the preliminary assessment of the Falcon I flight shows that the second stage shut down only a minute before schedule - and still managed to deploy its satellite mass simulator ring.

The shutdown appears to have been caused by the sloshing of propellant in the LOX tank, increasing observed oscillation, which would normally have been successfully dampened out by the second stage Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system. However, the impact on the second stage nozzle during separation caused a 'hard slew' correction, over-compensating previously simulated scenarios.

Mithridates 16:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not a failure

It seems that Elon Musk begs to differ:

http://www.spacex.com/updates.php#demoflight_2_prelim_review_2

(The rest here is a quote from the site, not written by me)

There seems to be a lot of confusion in the media about what constitutes a success. The critical distinction is that a test flight has many gradations of success, whereas an operational satellite mission does not. Although we did our best at SpaceX to be clear about last week's launch, including naming it DemoFlight 2 and explicitly not carrying a satellite, a surprising number of people still evaluated the test launch as though it were an operational mission.

This is neither fair nor reasonable. Test flights are used to gather data before flying a "real" satellite and the degree of success is a function of how much data is gathered. The problem with our first launch is that, although it taught us a lot about the first stage, ground support equipment and launch pad, we learned very little about the second stage, apart from the avionics bay. However, that first launch was still a partial success, because of what we learned and, as shown by flight two, that knowledge was put to good use: there were no flight critical issues with the first stage on flight two.

The reason that flight two can legitimately be called a near complete success as a test flight is that we have excellent data throughout the whole orbit insertion profile, including well past second stage shutdown, and met all of the primary objectives established beforehand by our customer (DARPA/AF). This allows us to wrap up the test phase of the Falcon 1 program and transition to the operational phase, beginning with the TacSat mission at the end of summer. Let me be clear here and now that anything less than orbit for that flight or any Falcon 1 mission with an operational satellite will unequivocally be considered a failure.

This is not "spin" or some clever marketing trick, nor is this distinction an invention of SpaceX -- it has existed for decades. The US Air Force made the same distinction a few years ago with the demonstration flight of the Delta IV Heavy, which also carried no primary satellite. Although the Delta IV Heavy fell materially short of its target velocity and released its secondary satellites into an abnormally low altitude, causing reentry in less than one orbit, it was still correctly regarded by Boeing and the Air Force as a successful test launch, because sufficient data was obtained to transition to an operational phase.

It is perhaps worth drawing an analogy with more commonplace consumer products. Before software is released, it is beta tested in non-critical applications, where bugs are worked out, before being released for critical applications, although some companies have been a little loose with this rule. :) Cars go through a safety and durability testing phase before being released for production. Rockets may involve rocket science, but are no different in this regard.

Mithridates 16:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. The goal of the flight was to "characterize" (my term) the behavior of the entire launch system. If SpaceX collected full telemetry, the goal was almost fully reached. But the flight wasn't a total success even so: they still don't know e.g. how the second stage behaves after successfully deploying a payload into orbit. They can't have gotten telemetry data for that event, since it did not occur. Sdsds 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As the first Delta IV Heavy start was called a partitial success too here (see 21 December 2004 in the log), I have changed it to the exact same calling in this article. ColdCase 19:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted this per earlier discussion. If you would like to contest this, I would suggest that you join in the discussion above. Frankly, characterising anything based on a single press release from an entity with an obvious vested interest would be a serious NPOV violation. The same set of criteria should be used to judge all launches, and the general consensus across all similar articles is that if it did not reach orbit when it was intended to, then it is a failure. I know that useful information has been collected, but we need to be consistent. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Careful here though. NPOV is about correctly characterising significant POV. Elon's POV about his launch vehicle is significant, and he's claiming that it was a test launch and one that was almost a complete success(!) To sustain a fail in the table you need to reference it.WolfKeeper 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the fact that it did not reach orbit should be enough. We need to be consistent in our approach to these articles. Anyway, Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive, which is one of the leading lists of space launches, classes it as a failure, and I think Space.com does as well. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Second stage tanks

Ah, sorry about that error! And thanks that it has been reverted by Duk. But maybe the LOX tank with it's special buffles should be mentioned, now that it has this little extra, in the "second stage" paragraph?? Greetings and sorry about that error once more ColdCase 18:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Redundant launch coverage

There is redundant coverage of the launches at this page and at the SpaceX page. I think we should make a Falcon 1 launches page similar to the Delta IV launches to avoid duplication and for better organization. (cross posted at Talk:SpaceX). --Duk 02:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I deleted all the launch details at the SpaceX page --Duk 07:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Remains are still flown

Just wanted to tell this because somebody deleted the reference for the flying of the remains of James Doohan and Gordon Cooper: It's true, that they were already flown on an UP Aerospace suborbital rocket in New Mexico. But since this was just a suborbital rocket, the remains came back on a parachute and will again be flown with the first SpaceX Falcon 1 flight in 2008! This time, the remains will remain in orbit and may some day reenter atmosphere to disintegrate and die down. Greetings, ColdCase 20:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

TacSat-1 on flight three

Resolved

 – (sdsds - talk) 05:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Not gonna happen. See e.g. http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/3884 for details. (sdsds - talk) 22:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Out-of-date information in the article. Go ahead and delete it if you like. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Edited to mention TacSat-1 cancelation. (sdsds - talk) 05:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Falcon 1 fire.jpeg

Image:Falcon 1 fire.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Stainless steel cheaper?

The "First Test Flight" section seems to say that stainless hardware is cheaper than aluminum. I don't build rockets but in every other aspect of life aluminum hardware has always been far cheaper than stainless. Somebody want to clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.101.30 (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not reaching low-earth orbit

There are currently no way to know if this Falcon 1 reached low-earth orbit. Only info we have currently is that there was been an "Anomaly". This does not mean that F1 has not reached low-earth orbit or that the launch was a failure. Please only report the known facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenio (talk • contribs) 03:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I've already included a hidden comment to that effect in the article itself. Musashi1600 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Anomaly" is space-industry speak for "failure". There are a few unconfirmed reports that it exploded two and a half minutes after launch. A control problem was also evident from the webcast. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 04:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

nasaspaceflight.com reports first stage failure [3], more cites will become available over the next couple hours I expect. RxS (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed material casting doubt on the official explanation of stage separation causing the launch failure. The text added by ColdCase (talk) referenced a single source, spacexpla.net, which appears to be his own blog. Also, there is very little reason at this point to report on alternative theories about the launch failure in the articles on SpaceX and Falcon 1. If anyone (besides ColdCase) wants to see this material restored, I'll be happy to put it back. Wronkiew (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The article need only give the "official" explanation, but should attribute the assertion to its source. In fact SpaceX hasn't yet made a press release per se. Instead they have only posted the description Elon wrote in California, presumably after he talked with SpaceX employees on Kwaj. Elon might not have understood what was reported. For example, "failure to separate" can mean at least two things, i.e. "the stages didn't come apart" or "something went wrong at the time of separation of the stages". The article properly attributes this to Musk at the end of the same section. If we must have it twice, we should use essentially the same wording in both places. (sdsds - talk) 03:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"There was an issue in the separation stage. A glitch resulted in the engine exploding."

I suppose this won't go in the wiki, but an engineer at SpaceX launch control reports that "There was an issue in the separation stage. A glitch resulted in the engine exploding."

208.116.128.48 (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Source? See WP:V to check if the one you have would fit in the article. Musashi1600 (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

New news on the recent failure. The stages separated, but ran into each other. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1302 Djd sd (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of launch not appropriate for an encyclopedia??? It's not a copy...

Resolved

 – Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 13:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I the edit history, "{{Unencyclopedic}}; this appears as a detailed copypaste from a website" was put in as comment for the Unencyclopedic-Tag adding in the "Timeline of launch" section of the third launch. Well, it's actually not a copypaste as far as I know and this detail can be easily produced by checking the different sources. As you can see, the different sources themself already point to the simple conclusion that this information is put together by more than one source => So no copy-paste from one source. I think we should erase the Unencyclopedic-Tag from this section again. ColdCase (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Without an comment on the talk page explaining how the section can be improved to make it encyclopedic, the tag should not be there. Also, I assert that the material I added to this section is my own work and was not copied from another website. Wronkiew (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't copied, I was updating it as the webcast and launch preparations progressed, but whether it's unencyclopedic or not is another matter. Although, when you look at the DemoFlight 2 paragraph, it's essentially a timeline of that launch too. And DemoFlight 1 has a timeline in the form of an image (albeit an idealized one). If the Flight 3 timeline wasn't a bullet list but a paragraph (i.e. we removed the current whitespace), it would use about the same amount of room. But this long after the launch, I doubt anyone cares when they finished loading the first stage of the SpaceX Falcon 1 on its third flight. --J. Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 11:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't clear what motivated the editor to mark this as unencyclopedic. What's clear is that a detailed account of the events of one particular launch shouldn't overwhelm the article about an entire class of launch vehicles. It might be possible to write an encyclopedic article entirely about the third time SpaceX got a vehicle off the pad. Maybe the material should be trimmed down. But it would be better to expand the remainder of the article, until the article was so large it needed to be split, at which point creating a sub-article specific to this launch would be totally great. (sdsds - talk) 03:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I added the tag and thought the condition was more clear than it is, as indicated by the questions being asked. I thought the extraordinary detail of a minutes:second timeline for the third flight is too detailed for an encyclopedia article about the entire Falcon 1 project. Although the detail was interesting for those with deep interest in the Falcon 1 flights, and likely would be appropriate for an article on Falcon 1 Flight no. 3 if Flight 3 were sufficiently notable to warrant a separate WP article, I really do not think such detail is appropriate here. It would seem the entire level of detail on the flight dynamics would be contained in a paragraph, with possibly more text on the verified implications for the company, or for future flight, or for NASA or whatever.

Kudos goes to J. Atkins for writing up a summary that was so good that it appeared it might be from another website. Good work. But I don't think it ought to remain merely because of it's excessive detail relative to the subject of the article. Hope that helps. N2e (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree; however I do think that there is some significant information in the timeline, which would be helpful if it was compacted into paragraph form, perhaps something along the lines of this:

An earlier launch attempt was delayed by the unexpected slow loading of helium onto the Falcon 1; thus exposing the fuel and oxidizer to the cryogenic helium, rendering the vehicle in a premature launch state. Still within the specified window, the launch attempt was recycled, but aborted half a second before lift-off due to a sensor misreading. The problem was resolved, and the launch was again recycled. With twenty-five minutes left in the launch window, the Falcon 1 lifted off from Omelek Island at 03:35 UTC. During the launch, small vehicle roll oscillations were visible. Stage separation occurred as planned, but due to residual fuel evaporating and providing transient thrust, they reconnected, preventing successful completion of the mission.

--J. Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 15:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I suggest a very slight change from "thrust, they reconnected, preventing" to "thrust, the first stage recontacted the second stage, preventing." But go with whatever you think best. N2e (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, and I've added your change. Thanks for bringing it up; this is much better than it was before. --J. Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 11:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)