Low-cost SpaceX rocket launch test fails

(AP) -- SpaceX engineers are investigating the cause of Saturday's failed flight of the Falcon 1, a low-cost, light-lift rocket developed by the Southern California-based company.

Similar stories from PHYSorg:

Aircraft that can see for themselves (w/ Video)

Nov 14, 2009 | 4.6 / 5 (9) | 0

Planetary Society plans new 'solar sail'

Nov 09, 2009 | 4.7 / 5 (14) | 1

Expanding drug treatment: Is US ready to step up?

Nov 08, 2009 | not rated yet | 1

Russia hopes nuclear ship will fly humans to Mars

Oct 29, 2009 | 4.6 / 5 (33) | 36

INL scientist is harnessing the power of plasma

Oct 27, 2009 | 4.9 / 5 (14) | 5

   

• earls - Aug 04, 2008
  • Rank: 2 / 5 (2)
  not so low-cost now was it? :p
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• timmyeatchips - Aug 04, 2008
  • Rank: not rated yet
  Was the payload recovered or was the rocket destroyed?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• mjporter - Aug 04, 2008
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
  It took NASA years of trials to get their launches working reliably. I don't see why this is a surprise to anyone.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• holoman - Aug 04, 2008
  • Rank: 2.3 / 5 (4)
  German rocket inventor Werner Von Braun shaking his head saying the technology has been around 70 years ! What's the problem.
  
  Maybe too much PayPal and not enough science.
  
  Now people will appreciate the job thousands of NASA personnel do to keep America's space program the best !
  
  
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• earls - Aug 04, 2008
  • Rank: not rated yet
  Shooting trial rockets is all fine and good, obviously, yes, the team/developers needs first hand experience and expertise, room to make mistakes. But when they lose not only the rocket, but the entire payload of three satellites and a dead actor it's hard to gloss over. It's kind of disturbing to me that the failure is so easy rationalized... But then again I guess it wasn't your cargo so - whatever. But what happens when it's SpaceShipTwo or the rocket has passengers onboard and fails...
  
  As holoman suggests, it would seem like we should be past the random "trial and error" phase of launching rockets, especially when people are depending on them... Maybe SpaceX can recoup costs, but after how many failed rockets are people going to be willing to sacrifice their hard work and effort just to see it go up in a fireball?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Sanescience - Aug 04, 2008
  • Rank: not rated yet
  That sucks. You can have a rocket working 99.9% and that .1% will take you down. This is one of the hardest things mankind tries to do and it is worth the investment to develop an improved process to get into orbit so we can open up space for more than the oddball hunk of metal or sideshow human.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• dirk_bruere - Aug 04, 2008
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
  Yes, it really is Rocket Science.
  Of course, if NASA were doing it they would get it right almost immediately. But instead of spending millions they'd spend billions and the resulting launcher would be vastly more expensive. They would probably take longer as well.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• DoctorKnowledge - Aug 05, 2008
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
  This article isn't news I wanted to hear. This company is underwritten by NASA, which means that they have NASA's blessing, and probably NASA's heavy involvement (I don't know the details, but it would be typical of major NASA commitments to contractors.) Three launch failures = complete program failure.
  
  One launch failure should be enough to cause a complete program investigation. That investigation should definitively solve, not just that particular problem, but problems with the administration and development process. For a second failure to happen implies gross incompetence or negligence. A third failure? The writing is on the wall. The Inspector General, then Congressional investigation. Not: "Gee, too bad it failed." Anybody who believes this company can turn itself around is sadly mistaken. Pull it apart.
  
  And, why not get progressive and radical? Fire any NASA employees who were responsible for supervising and okaying this effort.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5