So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?

[Hal]

a huge influx of "traditional" rocket engineer refugees from the mainstream companies, between Falcon 1 (crap) and Falcon 9 (awesome).

I'm as surprised and pleased as anyone by the good record of the Falcon 9 given the abysmal record of the Falcon 1. I grimaced when I saw videos of engine nozzles getting whacked during staging and exponentially increasing (i.e., undamped) attitude oscillations. I began to wonder how much longer they'd survive given their apparent inability to get some pretty basic things right.

So I'd be interested in any comments you might have about the reasons for SpaceX's turnaround that are not privileged in some way...

I found the on-board video from the third Falcon 1 flight, but it cuts out at staging.  Was the stage collision visible in any other views?  Link?

[cjameshuff]

I'm as surprised and pleased as anyone by the good record of the Falcon 9 given the abysmal record of the Falcon 1. I grimaced when I saw videos of engine nozzles getting whacked during staging and exponentially increasing (i.e., undamped) attitude oscillations. I began to wonder how much longer they'd survive given their apparent inability to get some pretty basic things right.

Failures in the first 3 attempts isn't good, but it's honestly not that bad, considering it was a completely new design. They all got off the ground and had in-flight failures. One of those was a staging problem caused by residual first stage thrust, one was a second stage control problem that may have been triggered by an impact during staging...things that are hard to test on the ground and have caused problems for other launch systems developed by more experienced companies. They had two good first-stage burns, two second stage ignitions, and one long second stage burn in those three flights. The second failure was good luck in a way...the control/slosh oscillation problem was the sort of sneaky issue that might not have cropped up until a more important flight.

The first was a bit odd...the engine caught fire and shut down 25 seconds into flight, crashing on a reef and dropping the payload through the roof of the machine shop. Not sure that's ever happened before.

[JayUtah]

The interstage to between the S-II and S-IVB separated with the S-II. Was the risk of hitting the single J-2 considered significantly less?

Yes.  The S-II has a cluster of J-2s, meaning that some had to be mounted significantly outboard.  The clearance between the interstage wall and the J-2 nozzles was quite narrow.

The S-IVB had only one axial-mounted J-2, so the clearance was considerably greater.

[JayUtah]

One of those was a staging problem caused by residual first stage thrust...

Because they had used the wrong model for projecting vacuum residuals from ambient-air residuals.

...one was a second stage control problem that may have been triggered by an impact during staging...

Root cause of impact at staging was control anomalies resulting from an incorrect flight software load.  Second stage stability would likely have been nominal had the staging not exhibited significant chi variance as a result of out-of-tolerance control inputs.

These are fairly elementary errors.  Yes, more experienced companies also make similar mistakes but not these mistakes anymore.  That's why I was so down on the Falcon 1.  Had the more experienced engineers been brought in earlier, the Falcon 1 might have also been a viable launch vehicle.  Keep in mind I come from having worked on the Delta III.  I know acutely what it's like to suffer through development pains.

[JayUtah]

I found the on-board video from the third Falcon 1 flight, but it cuts out at staging.  Was the stage collision visible in any other views?  Link?

The recontact was visible in the live feed and in several third-party videos that floated around after the flight.  But I too have a hard time locating any now.  I wonder if SpaceX had them removed.

[cjameshuff]

[Hal]

Thanks!  What an awful moment for the SpaceX folks watching live.

[gillianren]

Just out of a combination of curiosity, consideration, and maybe a touch of P.C., what descriptive terms would be inoffensive when referring to, well, the folks we encounter who espouse beliefs that are at odds with reality and who - generally - adamantly refuse to accept simple facts?

Willfully ignorant?

Aye, that's my term as well, though, generally, I don't call conspiracy theorists anything, referring to them as conspiracy theorists if and when I refer to the broader group. Some find the term pejorative, but it's their own damn fault if it is. Its literal meaning is neutrally descriptive at worst.

I use both "willfully ignorant" and "conspiracy theorist," as well as "conspiracist," where appropriate.  I have said many times, too, that I do not believe the behaviour of all the people we encounter fits neatly into a single psychological category.  Some show schizophrenic tendencies.  Some appear to be trolls.  Some just seem stupid.  Some have a hidden agenda--usually animosity against the US government.  There are a lot of factors, and sometimes, what seems like a serious problem is in fact someone with a need to provoke an emotional response in others who doesn't even believe what's being claimed.

[raven]

I am not sure about conspiracist. It sounds like someone who would be part of conspiracies themselves. While I have been assured it's etymologically sound, I am not so sure.
I got my own share of mental troubles, no way I am trying my hand at desktop psychology.

[JayUtah]

No, "conspiracist" is not recently coined.  "Conspirator" would be someone actually involved.  "Conspiratorialist" enjoyed a brief run, but it's syllabically unwieldy.  I thought I was the one who coined it, more than ten years ago.  Since then I've run across several previous authors who used "conspiracist" in much the same way I do, as a synonym for "conspiracy theorist."  "Conspiracist" also allows "conspiracism," which I believe is an important word since it embodies so many of the behaviors, attitudes, and approaches we note to be common among conspiracy theorists.

[raven]

Fair enough, though I am not all together certain for the need for a such a synonym.

[gillianren]

For one thing, it eliminates "theory" from the name.  Theories have to meet specific criteria; most of what gets presented as "conspiracy theories" barely qualifies as a hypothesis.

[Valis]

For one thing, it eliminates "theory" from the name.  Theories have to meet specific criteria; most of what gets presented as "conspiracy theories" barely qualifies as a hypothesis.

That's true, but even theoretical physicists come up with hypotheses when they aren't advancing a current theories. After all, superstring theory for example is a vivid area of theoretical research, but actually it should be called supersting hypothesis, as there isn't a single experimental result to support it. So even in the "high scientific research", the terminology is muddled.

[gillianren]

Sure, but (as I understand it) the research on superstring theory is ongoing--and I'm pretty sure they didn't start with their conclusion, there.  Conspiracists start with "the official story is wrong" and work from there.  If the evidence goes against it, either the people presenting the evidence are wrong or else it's a governmental lie.

[geo7863]

First off, it isn't just against the spirit of the forum.  It's ignorant of the meaning of the word "insanity" (hint: it's a legal term) and rude to several people here who do have mental health problems.  It's also counterproductive.  You don't educate by insulting.

Second . . . well, I do think education is important.  And even if some people are never going to be educated, there are some who are.  There are people who lurk and are educated. 

Avoid using clinical words such as "insane", "mentally deficient" etc, as it belittles and insults  those who genuinely suffer from these conditions clinically.

I prefer to refer to some of the more extreme HB's (such as Sibrel, Kaysing, White and that Aussie guy whose name escapes me at the moment) using general slang terms such as "nut-bar", "nut-job", "froot-loop" etc. My justification for this is that IMO, being clinically of sound mind is not a barrier to being just plain stupid or ignorant. 

Both of you have picked up that I may be rude/insulting to those with genuine mental health problems.... that is not my intention, I havent been here long enough to identify persons who may have health issues, and to be perfectly frank unless you work in the health sector how do you know that they have mental health issues?...and at the same time I too have had my own mental health issues in the past, and as the old saying goes 'it takes a nutter to spot a nutter'... but I will try to desist especially if it does upset the more innocent 'nutters'!

However my original post obviously alludes to one individual, who in many many posts has written with lucidity and thought (even if his understanding of the subject matter is clearly wrong) and then he has suddenly posted absolute and utter barking drivel! The man is clearly, even to a layman, not without severe issues! So does one just ignore the 'howling at the moon' bits and try to re-educate him on the 'science and engineering' bits? why? what would be the point of that? (although obviously in doing so it does, as Gillianren points out, educate everyone else and not just the 'poster' that the response may be to and that is obviously a good thing....otherwise I for one would remain a lot dumber than I currently am)

Just out of a combination of curiosity, consideration, and maybe a touch of P.C., what descriptive terms would be inoffensive when referring to, well, the folks we encounter who espouse beliefs that are at odds with reality and who - generally - adamantly refuse to accept simple facts?

Willfully ignorant?

I have to disagree with that, some may be wilfully ignorant, some are clearly trolls and some, definitely have 'issues' that cannot be adressed by trying to counter their 'beleifs' with rational explanation! ..or as Smartcooky calls them.....nut-jobs!