Firefly's Alpha CATO'd on it's first flight from Vandenberg yesterday.


Gene Blevins, LA Daily News via Spaceflightnow.com

__________________
I love sanding.

A former WOOSH club member is a propulsion engineer for FireFly. He'll probably be quite busy for a while now. Everything looked great at first, but then it seemed to take longer than expected to hit Max Q. The Everyday Astronaut feed I was watching in real time wasn't that good. I found another clip that seemed to show an engine failing shortly after throttle up. The rocket started doing cartwheels and then the FTS kicked in.

Here's what the former club members mom posted to the WOOSH mailing list the other day:

Firefly Aerospace, and employer of Woosh alum Jackson Lubin, is set to launch its first rocket to space on Sept 2 with a window from 8pm to midnight Central Time. (6pm to 10pm Pacific Time, where the rocket is)

Here is a link to the livestream: Watch Firefly launch their FIRST EVER orbital rocket, Alpha! - YouTube

My apologies for my premature announcement last November. Looks like I believed the company's overly optimistic estimates. As a reminder on the background, Woosh alum, and my son, Jackson Lubin, is now a Propulsion Engineer for Firefly, and Responsible Engineer for Fluid Systems on the first stage engines.

Lets all keep our fingers crossed for a successful launch!

__________________
Scott D. Hansen
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe - Your One Stop BAR Shoppe!
Ye Olde Rocket Plans - OOP Rocket Plans From 38 Companies!
Ye Olde Rocket Forum
WOOSH NAR Section #558

Kabloooeey !

__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !
Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, and HAVOC !

I love big fireballs, but I hope their next attempt is successful. It's a mid size booster that could fill a niche between the tiny sat boosters like Electron, and the larger boosters we are accustomed to seeing.

__________________
I love sanding.

It seemed to not be accelerating as much as it was supposed to. The onscreen timeline showed Max-Q and then scrolled way past it before a “Supersonic” call out was made. Max-Q is usually after going supersonic (Max-Q = velocity (squared) x air density)

The rocket veered off course and tumbled, staying intact while thrusting (impressive). Reportedly, the RSO destructed it.

I can only wonder if the apparent slowness was a factor in why it began tumbling. Such as lower than normal thrust. If it was at Max-Q at that point (very late), perhaps the control authority was not quite enough to keep it dead-center, any significant angle of attack could cause the CP to shift even more forward and overwhelm the control authority. Or, bad wind shear.

Although in any case it seemed to be underperforming (as in, was never going to make orbit even if it had not tumbled)

__________________
Contest flying, Sport flying, it's all good.....
NAR# 18723 NAR.org
GeorgesRockets.com
Georges'CancerGoFundMe:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-geo...ay-fight-cancer

I like POWR-VEERS too.
Would have been interesting if the RSO let it alone.

__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !
Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, and HAVOC !

Here's some more info from the former club member:

I spoke with Jackson and got some more information about what went wrong during the flight. Firefly does actually call it a win and they got a lot of data out of it. The engines did underperform, and they were not surprised by that. At the end, it looked like it cato'ed, by this was not a cato. This was Vandenberg policy. Vandenberg blew it up when it went outside the parameters set by Vanderberg to ensure it lands in a safe place. This is Vandenberg's requirement. All rockets launching from Vandenberg carry explosives, and Vandenberg decides when they get used, not Firefly. So, although it looked like a harsh result, it was actually just a small underperformance problem, and a win! Good thing I have an expert who can help me make sense of it!

__________________
Scott D. Hansen
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe - Your One Stop BAR Shoppe!
Ye Olde Rocket Plans - OOP Rocket Plans From 38 Companies!
Ye Olde Rocket Forum
WOOSH NAR Section #558

it appeared to me that one engine had a "burp" shortly after liftoff... maybe four or five seconds in ... and then the flame had a slight angle, as though the other engines had gimballed to keep the attitude (though that could have been normal attitude for orbital insertion— just seemed way too early). Unlike the Astra, it had enough thrust to keep lifting at a decent velocity, but not enough to reach the expected milestones. It seemed the launch crew was already aware that they weren't going to get to orbit, but kept going for whatever points they could get. (and to get as far out over the Pacific as possible)


The rear-facing camera showed a lot of vibration in the aft skirt, but this might be normal for whatever reason. But toward the end of the flight I noticed a lot more sparks coming from the left side of the rocket. The aft camera was faded out just before the tracking camera showed the rocket start to tip. and you could see what appeared to be the aft skirt disintegrate. Some thought that was the fairing (which one would expect based on past failures), but I thought the fairing looked amazingly intact, as the whole rocket was at a 90 degree angle of attack and didn't seem to be phased! Unlike the Astra, which was just allowed to break up and plunge into the ocean, I figured Vandenberg would eventually send a destruct signal, but they let it go longer than I would have expected, and it seemed to take the launch crew by surprise.

The guys at NASASpaceflight.com did an excellent job with their tracking camera.

__________________
Roy
nar12605

Looks like I would NEVER launch there.
I ALONE would be in control of ANY and ALL Explosive Aborts of MY vehicles.
Launch facility controlling it is major Horse Poop. I think I would disable their explosives at a last minute "check" by removing the blasting cap/detonator from the C4.

__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !
Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, and HAVOC !

Most would call it "a responsible approach to ensuring public safety." That is the service the Ranges provide. NOTHING you have ever built, or ever will build, has the ability to take out several city blocks. (Picture a large SLV coming in to a populated area under thrust). Thus, nobody cares about what you are flying.

Oh, and nobody uses C4.