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:

NASA Nanosatellites Catch Ride On Rocket, Demonstrate Technology

Aug 01, 2008 | 4.3 / 5 (6) | 0

SpaceX Delays Maiden Flight of Falcon 1 Rocket

Nov 27, 2005 | 4.9 / 5 (8) | 0

SpaceX Plans Reusable Seven Person Capsule

Mar 15, 2006 | 4.7 / 5 (9) | 0

NASA to Attempt Historic Solar Sail Deployment

Jun 27, 2008 | 4.3 / 5 (54) | 12

Bat flight generates complex aerodynamic tracks

May 10, 2007 | 4.9 / 5 (27) | 1

   

• rank
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

3.2/5 after 14 votes

• earls - Aug 04, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 2 / 5 (2)
  • rate
  not so low-cost now was it? :p
  • flag
• timmyeatchips - Aug 04, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: not rated yet
  • rate
  Was the payload recovered or was the rocket destroyed?
  • flag
• mjporter - Aug 04, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
  • rate
  It took NASA years of trials to get their launches working reliably. I don't see why this is a surprise to anyone.
  • flag
• holoman - Aug 04, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 2.3 / 5 (4)
  • rate
  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 !
  
  
  
  • flag
• earls - Aug 04, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: not rated yet
  • rate
  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?
  • flag
• Sanescience - Aug 04, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: not rated yet
  • rate
  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.
  • flag
• dirk_bruere - Aug 04, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
  • rate
  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.
  • flag
• DoctorKnowledge - Aug 05, 2008
  • Current rank
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
  • rate
  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.
  • flag