4 ms·

To be fair SpaceX's last launch (Aug 22) exploded too. It was a test, not a real mission, but to quote Elon: "Rockets are tricky."

by wdewind 12y ago

ddrmaxgt37 12y ago
Yup. IIRC it was auto triggered by some onboard system because of one of those 'anomalies'.
will_hughes 12y ago
For starters, that wasn't an actual launch to orbit, that's just the low altitude testing frames for landing/reusability. It was deliberately destroyed as a safety measure because the rocket was moving out of the testing zone and the onboard system wasn't able to compensate fast enough. Apparently Elon and a few others were a little annoyed that more (appropriate) risk wasn't being taken in those test flights, because they'd been 100% successful. Secondly, their launches of the production Falcon 9's have been 100% successful (with one launch not achieving a secondary objective). Additionally, after the first three Falcon 1's, they were also 100% successful. And finally, they launched two Falcon 9's since August 22nd: September 7th: Asiasat 6 launch (Geosync), and September 21st - Dragon CRS-4 (ISS).
- avmich 12y ago
  Agree. And those Merlin-1D seem to be very efficient from economical point of view. Technically they are also good - record setting for open cycle engines. However, NK-33 are closed cycle and have better Isp. Economically they also made a lot of sense for Orbital, since they were bought as already made for another project. It can be justified.
SEJeff 12y ago
Sure but I don't consider a test launch the same as "production" launch carrying payloads for ISS or other companies to hurl into orbit. Slightly different in that it is more acceptable for a test rocket trying out new functionality with no payload might fail.
rst 12y ago
Nu? SpaceX has had two successful launches since Aug. 22 -- AsiaSat 6 on September 7, and the CRS-4 ISS supply mission on September 21. The test article that blew up on the 22nd was not launch capable, and was reportedly missing some safety systems that are present on production vehicles.

To be fair SpaceX's last launch (Aug 22) exploded too. It was a test, not a real mission, but to quote Elon: "Rockets are tricky."

by wdewind 12y ago

To be fair SpaceX's last launch (Aug 22) exploded too. It was a test, not a real mission, but to quote Elon: "Rockets are tricky."

ddrmaxgt37 12y ago

Yup. IIRC it was auto triggered by some onboard system because of one of those 'anomalies'.

will_hughes 12y ago

For starters, that wasn't an actual launch to orbit, that's just the low altitude testing frames for landing/reusability. It was deliberately destroyed as a safety measure because the rocket was moving out of the testing zone and the onboard system wasn't able to compensate fast enough. Apparently Elon and a few others were a little annoyed that more (appropriate) risk wasn't being taken in those test flights, because they'd been 100% successful. Secondly, their launches of the production Falcon 9's have been 100% successful (with one launch not achieving a secondary objective). Additionally, after the first three Falcon 1's, they were also 100% successful. And finally, they launched two Falcon 9's since August 22nd: September 7th: Asiasat 6 launch (Geosync), and September 21st - Dragon CRS-4 (ISS).

avmich 12y ago
Agree. And those Merlin-1D seem to be very efficient from economical point of view. Technically they are also good - record setting for open cycle engines. However, NK-33 are closed cycle and have better Isp. Economically they also made a lot of sense for Orbital, since they were bought as already made for another project. It can be justified.

SEJeff 12y ago

Sure but I don't consider a test launch the same as "production" launch carrying payloads for ISS or other companies to hurl into orbit. Slightly different in that it is more acceptable for a test rocket trying out new functionality with no payload might fail.

rst 12y ago

Nu? SpaceX has had two successful launches since Aug. 22 -- AsiaSat 6 on September 7, and the CRS-4 ISS supply mission on September 21. The test article that blew up on the 22nd was not launch capable, and was reportedly missing some safety systems that are present on production vehicles.