If we're lucky, we'll have Cryosat 2 up there by late this year.Could an OCO-2 follow too?
I hope this doesn't happen to the Glory spacecraft in June (since it will also launch on a Taurus XL from Vandenberg)
PS, ordnance explodes. Ordinance is what sends you to jail if you make something explode.
I'm sorry to hear about the failure. I hope this issue can be resloved as soon as possible. It's always sad when you think how expensive the satellite was and how useful it could have been...
Quote from: Antares on 02/24/2009 02:16 pmThis is the type of thing that you solve inductively. You eliminate branches (fault tree) and bones (fishbone) and end up with certain ones that you don't have the evidence to eliminate. This will be the path unless there's a smoking gun in telemetry, which is typically known pretty quickly.The spaceflight ordnance world has been a bogeyman for a few years now. Too much consolidation, too much turnover, not enough business to keep the good guys around.I'm not going to argue with that, but we should acknowledge that we have no way to know if the ordinance itself was the problem here or not.
This is the type of thing that you solve inductively. You eliminate branches (fault tree) and bones (fishbone) and end up with certain ones that you don't have the evidence to eliminate. This will be the path unless there's a smoking gun in telemetry, which is typically known pretty quickly.The spaceflight ordnance world has been a bogeyman for a few years now. Too much consolidation, too much turnover, not enough business to keep the good guys around.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 02/24/2009 02:39 pmQuote from: Antares on 02/24/2009 02:16 pmThis is the type of thing that you solve inductively. You eliminate branches (fault tree) and bones (fishbone) and end up with certain ones that you don't have the evidence to eliminate. This will be the path unless there's a smoking gun in telemetry, which is typically known pretty quickly.The spaceflight ordnance world has been a bogeyman for a few years now. Too much consolidation, too much turnover, not enough business to keep the good guys around.I'm not going to argue with that, but we should acknowledge that we have no way to know if the ordinance itself was the problem here or not.From the SpaceX Falcon 9 User Guide...------------------------------SpaceX has also minimized the number of stages (2) to minimize separation events. The separation system between the first and second stages does not incorporate electroexplosive devices, instead relying upon a pneumatic release and separation system that allows for acceptance testing of the actual flight hardware. This is not possible with a traditional explosive‐based separation system.http://www.spacex.com/Falcon9UsersGuide_2009.pdf-----------------------Perhaps a redesign of the fairing separation mechanism is in order for both Orbital and SpaceX.My first post!Doug
That is for interstage, not fairing.
Even the good guys must move on. I don't write FORTRAN anymore.
Quote from: SF Doug on 02/24/2009 10:23 pmEven the good guys must move on. I don't write FORTRAN anymore.I didn't know anyone wrote FORTRAN anymore! (We still learned FORTRAN 77 when I was in college, though!)
Hi folks. Sorry I disappeared in the final minutes of the count this morning. Things got really hectic, and then things got really...interesting.I'm afraid I'll have to recuse myself from discussion of the failure.