Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Launch Failure Due To Timing Problem
FleaPlus writes "Private orbital spaceflight company SpaceX recently announced that last weekend's Falcon 1 rocket launch failure was caused by a collision between the first and second stage of their rocket. This was due to a timing problem, when their brand-new engine design produced residual thrust for 1.5 seconds longer than expected; they're currently working to fix the problem and launch again, perhaps as early as next month. In a recent interview with Wired, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk remarked on their efforts: "Optimism, pessimism, f-ck that; we're going to make it happen. As God is my bloody witness, I'm hell-bent on making it work.""
Wow, it's like listening to Ahab rant about getting Moby-Dick. Hopefully this will have a better outcome.
...and Mr. Carlson thought turkeys could fly.
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
And I fully expect them to be a major player in the future of commercial space travel.
They've done some absolutely amazing things in the last couple of years on a budget that makes all the governments combined look pretty silly. They remind me of Reid Malenfant and his outfit (only a bit more realistic), and I don't think any issues that crop up during this test stage are going to slow them down for long.
Maybe the 21st century will see some serious space exploration after all, instead of all those 'feel good' missions. $/kg to orbit is the only significant number for the next two decades or so, once there is enough construction capability up there to start hauling stuff inbound it should get interesting indeed.
MP3 Search Engine
If NASA had that attitude, we never would have had a decade of stagnation after the first Shuttle accident. We'd have a moon colony by now. The problem is that the people at top too often see these kind of events as a signal to stop, where it really should be a sign that they're almost there. Remember when the Delta rocket flew and then fell over and burst into flames because of failed landing gear? LANDING GEAR! Something trivial to engineer (compared to the rest), and the project is shelved because of that failure. They should have kept going.
Argh. Enough of my ranting, you people get the idea. I just wish the pointy haired bosses did.
Or a man who can drive your company in to the ground faster than a failed Falcon 1.
Sig? SIG? We don't need no stinkin' sig!!!
I hate to say this, but the CEO has an attitude problem.
He needs to do some reading up on the reviews of NASA after the two shuttle disasters. In both cases overconfidence, and management overruling/ignoring the views of engineers were found to be major factors.
If he keeps running "hell-bent" towards his goal he's never going to reach it.
Hint: when he says "I'm hell-bent on making it work", he actually means "I will not be doing any of the actual work myself, but I'm hell-bent on pushing my workers". Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
yeah but he uses the profanity so well, why can't all press releases be like this.
If NASA had that attitude, we never would have had a decade of stagnation after the first Shuttle accident. We'd have a moon colony by now. The problem is that the people at top too often see these kind of events as a signal to stop, where it really should be a sign that they're almost there. Remember when the Delta rocket flew and then fell over and burst into flames because of failed landing gear? LANDING GEAR! Something trivial to engineer (compared to the rest), and the project is shelved because of that failure. They should have kept going.
Argh. Enough of my ranting, you people get the idea. I just wish the pointy haired bosses did.
if Musk et al. has an accident where someone dies, I bet the FAA and others will be introducing some delays in his schedule. And I'm sure they'll some public outcry that he's flying over people and putting them in jeopardy - whether or not it's true.
We've lost our sense of adventure, the acceptance of risk and, well, we've become a society that's so bent on being safe that we're afraid to take any warranted risks: we've become a society of pansies.
On a side note, nothing says "We're a serious business venture" quite like a CEO who rants and uses phrases like "fuck that" in interviews. Perhaps the rocket stages aren't the only thing that can't hold back when it counts.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
And what the fuck is wrong with profanity?
They are trying to shoot people into space for God's sake and that takes passion. This sometimes manifests itself in profanity.
Personally I like this attitude much more than the life-less suit who can't relate to the passionate. I prefer Larry Ellison's "I'm gonna kick the fucking door down and take that shit!" to Bill Gates "well, we better see if we can sneak in the back and steal everything". It's much more honest. Both have the same goal, but one isn't delusional about it.
This isn't your average widget company. People don't invest in companies like SpaceX just because of the profit potential, they do it because they desperately and fervently want to see us get our bald monkey asses off this rock. Having a CEO that unabashedly shares this passion is heartening to investors like those. If anything, I expect this "outburst" will help SpaceX more than harm them.
:)
Real Genius shows us the kind of ingenuity that this country has all but lost. It's all about first to market, business plans and IPO's now.
Anyway, Elon Musk and Richard Branson remind me of D. D. Harriman in R. A. Heinlein's Future History short stories, especially, "The Man Who Sold the Moon."
TANSTAAFL GIGO Acronyms to live by!
Good objection, but airlines are a little different from space travel for several reasons :
- First, even though there have been a lot of airlines accidents, the numbers are pretty low compared to the number of flights per day. Notice also that the first accident was on 1922, 8 years after the first commercial flight. I think that space travel has a much higher accident/flight ratio. (I admit i don't have numbers to prove it : Wikipedia says that about 4% of people who went to space died inflight, but that includes early flights so it's not exactly the same thing.)
- Second, plane flights were useful to people from the beginning : you could get from point A to point B in much less time than train or boat. Space travel has no such thing : it's a leisure activity. You won't miss a business opportunity if you don't try it.
This was the thing I liked the most in the article...
Wired.com: Your whole mantra is "cheaper and more reliable." But so far you're zero for three, which is anything but cheap and reliable, and guys like GlobalSecurity.org's John Pike say the reason it has taken billions of dollars and tens of thousands of people to successfully launch rockets is physics, not some new design or economic model.
Musk: Guys like John Pike have existed since the dawn of time, and if you listen to people like that then things will never get better, never change. It's a false point of view. Yes, we need to put some rockets into orbit. But the first order of business is to get rid of design errors, which we're doing, and once those are eliminated then you're dealing with repeatability, and people should judge what we're doing from the point of view of all the design issues we've ironed out through these F1 test flights.
Its not that there's not the potential for big returns. Quite to the contrary, if they actually get the bugs ironed out and hit their price target, they're going to make an utter mint. The problem is the risk. The private rocketry landscape is littered with the graves of equally ambitious companies. What makes SpaceX interesting is how much capital they have behind them and how far along they are. They actually stand a chance of pulling it off, and I think that's what makes them so interesting. But it's still a very risky investment, because rocketry is a very tough business in comparison to other investments people might throw their money into.
FSB hits! FSB hits! Your democracy dies. Do you want your possessions identified?
I think it shows the kind of incredible resolve it takes to do rocket science. I think it's the same resolve the Apollo program had, and I think it's infectious. It's one thing to be balls to the wall but have no demonstrative ability to execute, but remember that Flight 2 actually did make it up there. And that NASA and the US Government have enough confidence in their ability to give them major contracts. For those invoking the Ahab thing, I just don't see that. 5-1 odds they nail it in Flight 4.
Hmmm. I am guessing that you do not know too many CEOs of medium companies, let along major companies. Most have little scruples and cuss like a sailor or dick cheney.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yes. Having an actual craft that works enough to get high enough into the air to fail in its second stage is far along.
This. Is. Rocket. Science.
I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand this.
The enemies of Democracy are