Just going by Kimbal's blog (I still don't see the webcast)

http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/

it seems they had some trouble cooling the helium -- and it took long enough that they worried about the fuel getting too cold so they unloaded the fuel, got their helium problem fixed, and then reloaded the fuel. As of a few minutes ago, the first stage is fueled, and the clock is running for an 8:00 PM PDT (0300 GMT) launch.

--Greg

Thanks for the updates chaps. It's nearly 4am here, but I woke up and thought I'd just check everything went off OK, and the webcast just sprang back to life at T-15 and counting. Perfect! Best of luck to everyone on the SpaceX team

Glad you're getting the webcast, but it's still dead here in Seattle. The text updates come through, but no audio and no video. :-(

--Greg

We had the lightning Elon tour of SpaceX; back live... the services tower has been retracted.

T-5 mins!

T-30s! The comms sound a lot more practiced than last time.

Abort at T-0. Drat!

--Greg

"not necessarily a problem" - says the commentator, but the count reached zero, someone called an abort, nothing happened - then there was a gust of flame and smoke, lots of cheering... now the "strongback" (not heard that term before) is lifting back into position.

The clock's still running, showing T+2:00 with Falcon still on the pad!

Spaceflight Now says the strongback is the structure used to transport and erect the Falcon, but, yeah, I never heard that term before either.

--Greg

there may yet be another attempt tonight, recycling to T minus 10. assessment in progress

Well, last time they had an engine ignition and shutdown, and they recycled and launched a little more than an hour later. But that ignition occurred at T-0. This ignition occurred *after* the cutoff was called and after the comm chatter started concentrating on the safing of the vehicle.

That looks and sounds a lot like a GINORMOUS OOPS to me, boys...

-the other Doug

Kimbal is saying countdown to recycle to T-10 in 15 minutes.

--Greg

They're at T-9 minutes and counting right now. Amazing.

-the other Doug

Disconcerting to say the least, but they don't seem that fazed if (as Kimbal says) they reset to T-11 in five minutes' time.

Kwajalein Atoll and Rockets

What worries me more is Kimbal's casual comment that "it's only off 0.5 psi -- no biggie". I'm sure the real engineers did a more serious analysis, but there's got to be SOME reason why SOMEONE thought a value off by that much merited an abort.

--Greg (fingers crossed)

Tense, and it's not just me... the cheering crowd in the background (at SpaceX HQ) sound more subdued this time T-3:00.

You mean some computer.

No, the engineer who wrote the spec that a programmer implemented and a computer mindlessly followed.

--Greg

Lift-off!

And humans then evaluate.

Of course. And if the original idea was "this should never happen, but if it does, we should take a quick look at it to be safe," then that's fine. But if there's pressure to launch and people get in the habit of disregarding safeguards that were originally well-thought-out, then that's not fine.

No way to tell which we're seeing here, of course.

--Greg

Uh-oh. Lost the video signal, then back to the talking heads - "reported anomaly on the vehicle".

Doesn't sound good.

Failed during first-stage flight. Onboard video showed it snapping crisply around some rather tight deadband in roll. Thing was just snapping left, right, left, right... and then the video cut off.

Followed by "We've had an anomaly with the vehicle," two more sentences, and then credits roll on the webcast....

-the other Doug

Second stage pressurization was due to start at T+2:25

--Greg

I don't think that's the case here, and whatever the "anomaly" was, I doubt it was connected with the cause of the initial shutdown. But I'm sure we all will be waiting to find out what happened.

I agree -- unless it's an indication of a wider tendency to cut corners. I've been very enthusiastic about SpaceX, but for the first time I'm starting to wonder if they've really got what it takes. It'll be interesting to hear what Elon has to say, but I suspect it'll be weeks before they know for sure what happened.

Of course, they haven't actually confirmed that the vehicle was lost, but it sure looks like it. :-(

--Greg

Lost confirmed.
"It was obviously a big disappointment not to reach orbit on this flight [Falcon 1, Flight 3]. On the plus side, the flight of our first stage, with the new Merlin 1C engine that will be used in Falcon 9, was picture perfect. Unfortunately, a problem occurred with stage separation, causing the stages to be held together."
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

I am getting more and more confident that the first propulsive solar sail in orbit will be Japanese. See http://www.isas.ac.jp/e/snews/2004/0809.shtml

Spaceflight Now has a good comprehensive article about the launch attempt. Among other things, it says SpaceX isn't in danger of losing the 11 future Falcon launches that are already booked.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon/003/

I think they should have called SpaceX a "young company" not a "short-lived company" though. ;-)

Elon's public message says they recently took a big outside investment, so they'll not run out of money developing Falcon 9 and Dragon.

http://spacex.com/updates.php

And Kimbal says vehicles 4 and 5 are almost ready for launch and he'll tell everyone when he has the expected launch dates.

http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/

I hope they can diagnose this failure swiftly. But not TOO swiftly . . .

--Greg

I just studied the video and it looked like the high roll rate limit cycle started after some shock or something flew by the camera window at about 1:14. The plume changed with a "dirty" extension (2 o'clock in the video) which seemed to move back and forth in "response" to the rolls but I can't tell if that might have been the roll control exhaust doing its thing. I read on NASAspaceflight that the Merlin 1C had a swirl in its new regen plumbing, but I don't know for sure. I do know that the Lunar Module Descent Engine (pintle design) had a bias torque in roll (yaw actually - but it was about the thrust axis anyway) and the rolls, though more dramatic on Falcon, could have been a nominal attitude profile.

When they find out for sure what happened I hope it was something "stupid" so they can fly right away. What a bummer.

It's interesting that the official comment about the failure is that "the first stage failed to be released". That conjures up images of the first stage simply remaining attached. But the Spacex page on Wikipedia (but not the Facon1 page) states that the event was much more complex and dramatic:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX]

That suggests to me that some of the explosive bolts worked but not others, so the first stage hinged away and then swung back violently (being strongly pushed back in line by the air rushing past at 1050 m/s) , and then the still attached parts tore away large chunks of the second stage. I think an automated second stage ignition attempt with the leaking fuel and structural damage may have been the cause of the explosion.

The above quote must have been leaked by an employee because the person who wrote it has clearly seen a longer version of the on-board camera footage than was broadcast. I.e., Spacex pulled the plug on the web feed once it realizes something is going seriously wrong (I am sure that happened last time too). Sounds like we missed out on the most interesting part by far! I wonder if the full version will ever be released?

It will be interesting to compare the above statement with the official version, when it appears.

Yep! Just as I thought. The quote above has now been deleted from the Wikipedia page. You read it here first ... and last.

I'm a little puzzled by the rapid assertion (literally before the dust had settled) that two more flights are almost ready to go. Either they have a very good idea of the root cause of flight 3's staging failure, or that announcement pre-empts the investigation. That said... Elon's determination to see it through, and confidence in ultimate success, is inspiring stuff.

I wouldn't treat that Wikipedia article as gospel; the supposed "insider view" material was edited out, 20 minutes after it was posted. [EDIT: looking at the changelog, it seems it wasn't deleted for being wrong or inaccurate - just unverifiable...]

Yeah, well if I was the next client (ATSB [Malaysia]), I think I'd like to see them send the next one up empty as a test... I mean, it hasn't worked yet.

Come to think of it, the failure of the second test flight started with impact between stages during/after separation (and the first test flight didn't get that far). They probably modified the stage separation equipment and/or process to avoid another impact, but it seems that whatever they did has caused much worse problems. That means they will certainly have to modify the stage separation process, and I would have thought the modifications will need to flight-proven with another test flight.

I know this is all only speculation, but if I am right that modifications in the stage separation caused the failure this time, the paradoxical thing is that they probably could have had a successful (if very slightly flawed) flight this time if they had simply left the stage separation process untouched, because the impact last time was only a problem because the second stage couldn't cope with the wobbling it set off and they have since taken measures to dampen second-stage wobbling.

I think they would be stupid, from a PR perspective, to do so. It is one thing to have a description of the anomaly (the wiki-thing sounded plausible), another to see your baby go gablooey, creating a visceral, visual shadow on your efforts to be successful and sell a fine rocket.

Your speculation about the separation fix is interesting.

Video broadcast of the launch was terminated about 2 minutes, 20 seconds into the flight. Anomaly was noticed 19 seconds before stage separation.

Falcon 1 timeline

T+02:20 - Inertial Guidance
The Falcon 1 guidance system switches to inertial mode.

T+02:25 - Second Stage Pressurization
The second stage's kerosene and liquid oxygen tanks are pressurized in preparation for the ignition of the Kestrel engine.

T+02:38 - MECO
The Merlin engine exhausts its supply of propellant and shuts down.

T+02:39 - Stage Separation
The first and second stage separate.

T+02:43 - Kestrel Ignition
The second stage Kestrel engine ignites and ramps up to 6,900 pounds of thrust.

Good point peter59. Your timeline matches the one in the Flight 3 Press Kit available on the SpaceX site.

The currently available webcast stops at T+131 secs (2:11) [see it at http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1299], however things were still seem to have been going normally after that - the last normal entry on the live updates was "switching to inertial guidance mode mode T+140 secs (2:20) [See http://www.spacex.com/webcast.php]

IF the anomaly was noticed at T+140s, that would contradict the statement that failure to separate was the problem, and it would makes Elon's statement that "On the plus side, the flight of our first stage, with the new Merlin 1C engine that will be used in Falcon 9, was picture perfect" completely false.

However, there would have been a built-in delay in the webcast (for censuring) and they would have shut off the webcast as soon as they knew something was seriously wrong rather than keep it running up to the point where they noticed the anomaly, so presumably the anomaly was noticed later than T+140 secs, probably at T+159 secs (2:39) - unless SpaceX is lying to us...

But wasn't there a delay of about 19-20 seconds in that video as well? That's an issue I've noticed other people writing about. I couldn't get that stream to work at all, so I can only go by what others have said.

I saw it stop at T+ 2 minutes 12 seconds. I think we should estimate the transmission delay from that number and your excellent post of timings: 2:39 - 2:12 + lag(shock!)~3(?) = 30 second delay?

Oh dear.....will it ever work ?

"Falcon 1, The World's Lowest Cost Rocket to Orbit" or not as of today.......

Today's Wall Street Journal has an article about the launch attempt on page B4. Here's the link, but I think you have to be a subscriber to see the article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1217746275..._us_marketplace

So here's a couple of bits from the article that are reasonably new info:

Third Failed SpaceX Launch Raises Concerns About Rocket
By ANDY PASZTOR
August 4, 2008; Page B4

LOS ANGELES -- For the third time in as many tries, the most prominent privately funded U.S. rocket suffered a launch failure, raising new questions not only about the fate of the project but about what Pentagon brass and civilian-government space officials will do if they can't depend on the planned family of low-cost Falcon launchers.
.
.
.

The latest launch failure is significant because military planners have anticipated using the company's Falcon family of launchers to boost smaller, less-expensive satellites and that test new technologies into orbit over the next few years.

Separately, the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration has agreed to invest hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars as part of an unusual partnership with SpaceX to develop the first commercially operated rocket designed to take cargo to the International Space Station and, eventually, farther into space.

If the rocket's technical problems persist, those carefully calibrated plans could fall apart, prompting Congress and government space officials to re-evaluate SpaceX's ability to play a major role in achieving those goals.

.
.
.


--Greg

Pretty ominous tone. They'd better do an exhaustive (and very transparent) failure analysis of this to keep things afloat.

IMHO, it's pretty darn important that they succeed for not only themselves, but for the US' national launch capabilities.

You know what they say about chasing two rabbits.... and they are currently chasing three.
(Falcon-1, 9 and Dragon)
SpaceX should focus on getting Falcon-1 flying and only after that take the next step.

Hmm. That's a very good point.

SpaceX Receives $20 Million Investment from Founder’s Fund
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=47

"SpaceX offers light, medium and heavy lift capabilities to deliver spacecraft into any altitude and inclination, from low-Earth to geosynchronous orbit to planetary missions."
Really ? I don’t belive.

An interview with Elon Musk.
Q&A: SpaceX's Elon Musk Vows to Make Orbit

"We definitely know where the problem occurred, but 'why?' is the question. We think we know, but have to be sure. We think it's very small and will require a tiny change, so tiny that if we had another rocket on the pad we could launch tomorrow."
What's arrogance! Luckily, I’m not investor.

Where exactly is arrogance in that statement?

If they launched tomorrow the likely hood is something else would fail........

It took NASA dozens and dozens of launches to get it mostly right, and of course stuff still occasionally "blows up ".

Which is exactly the reason no one should be expecting things to be perfect after a few tries. I'm disheartened about the last failure as well, but make no mistake: rocketry is hard. I'm glad this last setback didn't ruin their funding and all chances of success in the future, especially since they came close with the second flight. The last thing SpaceX needs is investors who bail out at the first sign of trouble - did they actually expect this was 100% guaranteed success in the first place?

The ironic thing about the last two failures is that they had to do with stage separation which is exactly what SpaceX isolated as one of the most common problems in spaceflight. I wonder if the "Russian" way of staging would have been a better development choice - igniting the next stage while the previous one is still burning and then just blowing the previous stage away with engine exhaust.
The U.S. Titan ICBM also employs a similar "fire-in-the-hole" scheme where the interstage is blown away at 2nd stage ignition thus not allowing any recontact at separation.

As for the comment on likelihood of something failing if they fixed this problem and launched immediately tomorrow, it's not necessarily the case that wouldn't happen even several months later. There are failure modes which cannot be characterized well on the ground and if this one and the potential next one are unrelated, if you don't catch it on the ground, it doesn't matter when you launch the next flight after fixing this issue. SpaceX chose the full-up testing method instead of incremental testing probably due to limited funding. If you're low on funds, and testing the first stage, you might as well stick a live second stage on it as well instead of a dummy stage so you can get some useful data on the 2nd stage in case the 1st stage works properly. It costs more to do that, but the potential return in knowledge likely outweighs the cost of a live second stage. Take the second Falcon 1 attempt - had there been an inert upper stage, all they'd learn is the first stage has a problematic separation and wouldn't realize it had a catastrophic (as in more than expected) effect on 2nd stage propellant sloshing. It would take yet another attempt to realize that.

This can be compared to the days of Apollo - the Saturn I/Ib used the incremental test approach, while Saturn V used full-up testing due to short time schedules.

To give credit where credit is due, contractors like Convair, Douglas, and Martin did most of the work. NASA usually just buys stuff, and provides oversight (sometimes usefully )