SpaceX's Falcon 1 rocket fails to reach orbit... again

Aw man, and we had such high hopes that the third time really would be a charm. SpaceX's third attempt to launch a payload rocket into outer space failed this weekend, with launch control confirming an "anomaly" just five minutes after liftoff. Elon Musk, SpaceX chairman and CEO, did admit that it was "obviously a big disappointment not to reach orbit on this Flight 3 of the Falcon 1," but he has assured the world that his firm won't be wasting any time feeling sorry for itself. The Falcon 1 was carrying a minuscule satellite dubbed Trailblazer for the Pentagon's Operationally Responsive Space Office, though we've no idea how costly the loss was. Thankfully, we can all look forward to SpaceX trying again sometime in the future, but unless the tables turn in a hurry, we'd say the odds are still stacked against it.

[Via Wired]

[who? @ Aug 3rd 2008 5:09PM]

No sh*t Sherlock!

[iEye @ Aug 3rd 2008 5:34PM]

BREAKING: the world is round, not flat as was reported earlier...

[who? @ Aug 3rd 2008 6:01PM]

Engadget is going downhill, no doubt about that. Still, they can come back, get on the ball you bloggers! I believe in you!

[Jamma @ Aug 3rd 2008 7:05PM]

Give them a break, it's Sunday!!

[who? @ Aug 3rd 2008 7:09PM]

It wasn't Sunday when this should've been posted...

[neofolklore @ Aug 4th 2008 8:16AM]

this picture is 100% relevant. (safe for work)

http://i37.tinypic.com/2pza9et.jpg

[Rick @ Aug 3rd 2008 5:14PM]

No one can hear their screams of anguish in space anyway.

[Thi mam(kris120890) @ Aug 3rd 2008 6:21PM]

Can if they use a radio

[who? @ Aug 4th 2008 12:01AM]

Correction- if they use a radio AND have air.

[Blah @ Aug 3rd 2008 5:21PM]

For some reason this story reminds me of the movie "Event Horizon" although I have never actually seen it before.

Liberate tutame ex inferis?

[Brian! @ Aug 3rd 2008 5:22PM]

You have to wonder why someone put their payload on this rocket anyway. After all, with 2 previous failed attempts, do you really put your expensive satellite on the third?

I say no way. Wait until the 4th! You know there is going to be some serious discounts on their shipping costs!

[xstream @ Aug 3rd 2008 5:29PM]

the insurance pays for the lost payload anyway

[cacophony @ Aug 3rd 2008 5:34PM]

Yeah, but what sane adjuster would insure flight #4 at a reasonable rate?

[Macro @ Aug 3rd 2008 6:11PM]

Well if all the rest go well then the insurance company should make its money back. I read through their site and there's a lot on there about making it simple so it won't fail guess they need some fail safe. There's an awful lot going on in a short period of time at least it didn't blow up on the pad.

[Macro @ Aug 3rd 2008 6:13PM]

Also they mention they have redundant explosive bolts for stage separation and the bolts have a "perfect record".. Weird that's the thing that failed.

[nDee @ Aug 3rd 2008 8:07PM]

Weird why Ryan Air doesn't crash all the time, they are both low cost, aren't they?

(tech-wise : No)

[Alex64 @ Aug 3rd 2008 5:27PM]

I read this on Digg and supposedly the ashes of James Montgomery Doohan were on board.

[Thi mam(kris120890) @ Aug 3rd 2008 6:15PM]

Doohan was in the first flight along with the ashes of 206 other people which also failed. SpaceX= Epicly Epic fail

[brandon @ Aug 3rd 2008 6:31PM]

I believe the term you are searching for is Uber Epic Fail

[Neil H. @ Aug 4th 2008 3:23AM]

More specifically, a few grams of Doohan's ashes were on board, supposed to be symbolic of the whole. Celestis, the company that does the memorial payloads, will mostly likely just try launching again using part of the remaining ashes on another rocket.

[brandon @ Aug 3rd 2008 5:42PM]

Fail.........

[hank94jp @ Aug 3rd 2008 5:48PM]

Shoulda had the pigeon from 3 articles down at launch control...Then the liftoff would've been smooth as buttah

[dan @ Aug 3rd 2008 6:15PM]

The hammer / toilet seat analogy falls on its face. I see the point you are trying to make, but it is not a piece of electro-mechanical equipment. It simply needs to function post-exposure, and surely you do not need a $700 instrument to bang on something with. A lot of the times the environments for equipment are severe, and the result is additional expense. However, overcharging the government, or wastefulness on its part, is not to be discounted.

[who? @ Aug 3rd 2008 7:35PM]

@ dan

Please get a sense of humor. They're all the rage.

[akimball @ Aug 3rd 2008 5:54PM]

There is a reason why the $700 hammer costs $700!!! You have to shake the crap out of it. Vibe and shock... thermal and environment, in a heat convection free zone (no air molecules to conduct heat away from solid state electronics with device junction temperatures not rated beyond 125C or so)...

When you realize what has to happen for these babies to fly, you begin to understand why hammer's cost $700 for aerospace and military. This my fellow geek friends, is why most people would fail as a true geek. If you don't know why the hammer costs $700, you really haven't been there.

[akimball @ Aug 3rd 2008 6:29PM]

well, the "hammer" thing really was just an analogy... but say it were really a ah... hammer... then, you'd need it to fit in an astronaut's tool belt... fit the grips of the space suit... you'd need it to fit all kinds of criteria which the typical 'commercial' hammer would not need to fit.

I design products for an outfit which supplies critical parts for military and space. I can assure you that we do not overcharge for what we do, but on the same note, when commercially simple 10-100-baseT switch goes into space, the $10 unit goes from $10 to about $2000 each. This is because you're going to sell about 50 to 80 units... which can't fail... under any circumstances.

The interesting thing, is when you vibe these.... subjecting them to 3-axis shaking comparable to what is experienced on a jet, helicopter, or launch vehicle, you'd be surprised what can break away. There are solutions, but they're not cheap.

[Dumo @ Aug 4th 2008 2:15AM]

The Hammer is my Penis.

[Ed T @ Aug 3rd 2008 6:12PM]

C'mon guys, it's not like this is rocket science!

[Bunson @ Aug 3rd 2008 9:22PM]

OOOOHHh I get it! It's funny because it is rocket science! OOHHHHHH

[akimball @ Aug 3rd 2008 6:14PM]

I feel that private industry has much to learn when it comes to military and NASA type hardware. There is a reason why these systems cost so much money. The true challenge will be to develop and TEST systems which need vibe and shock and thermal and environmental testing... while maintaining cost margins in low numbers of units sold.

When you're making only 10 or 20 of something, and when that "something" has to survive every test known to mankind, something is going to fail.

Sadly, when you launch something into space, even parts which weight only 0.5 grams can fracture off of a sensitive circuit board... and when that circuit needs to operate with a junction temperature of 85C or more... in an airless environment... well, good luck keeping your costs down.

[nickroz @ Aug 3rd 2008 6:35PM]

Yeah, private sector space missions sound good on paper, but someone is gonna start cutting corners somewhere for cost and...

...things like this are gonna happen. :/

[Bill @ Aug 3rd 2008 7:34PM]

While I'm not a "rocket scientist", I do know that space is an extremely harsh and unforgiving environment - more so than just about anything on Earth, except for, perhaps, the deep ocean and subterranean environments. And, that space travel - particularly the launch - is extremely stressful on all the components used.

[jeti @ Aug 4th 2008 3:31AM]

The guys at NASA worry to death about every eventuality and try to cover for it. The problem with this it that many of the possible problems are not actual ones. Trying to solve these non-issues just drives up cost.
Solving only the actual problems causes more trouble in the short run, but leads to cheaper hardware if you can make the initial investment.
Case in point? The mars rovers were mostly for testing whether 'off the shelf' hardware could operate in the harsh conditions on Mars. They outperformed even the wildest expectations.

[andy @ Aug 4th 2008 11:47PM]

You missed one factor.

NASA and military hardware cost so much because failure would lead to bad public opinion which leads to congressmen not getting elected, which leads to a lack of funding. Basically, they can't take risks or they will look bad and get their funding pulled. It is amazing how cheap you can make things if you remove politics (Spacechip 1?).

[Max @ Aug 3rd 2008 7:26PM]

I think that this post was obviously written in ignorance. First of all, this is rocket science we are talking about, and that is some pretty hard stuff. Secondly, it is not like they get to test fly these things, they really only have one shot and then have to go back and learn from all of the their mistakes. Also, the Falcon 9, a bigger rocket with 9 engines in the initial launch stage, has had successful tests and this rocket has already be contracted by NASA to bring things to the International Space Station in 2010. I think everyone should read the New York Times article instead of just believing some quickly written libel that was just thrown up on a blog.

link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/science/space/03launch-2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[andy @ Aug 4th 2008 11:40PM]

I agree. Falcon 9 is a much bigger project with much greater potential. Despite the failure, the first stage appeared to work flawlessly, so they should have some really good data on the Merlin 1C engine which they are using on the Falcon 9.

Anyways, it is rocket science. Anything less than 100% success is complete catastrophic failure (usually with really awesome videos).

[Max @ Aug 3rd 2008 7:30PM]

Lol I just saw the post a couple down that says exactly what I'm talking about and they are written by two different authors with 2 different slants. wtf kind of coverage is that

[Wormbolt @ Aug 3rd 2008 9:59PM]

Does it have a touchscreen?

If not, I don't want.

[odemata @ Aug 4th 2008 6:38AM]

oops forgot to carry the one