SCRUB: SpaceX Falcon 1, Launch Dec 19

[Avron]

Chris Bergin - 19/12/2005  3:40 PM

No official reason and the conference call has now ended.

Braddock and Chris, thanks once again for the Awesome coverage..

[Terry Rocket]

Imagine if this had gone on for seven hours, that'd of been dramatic. The first hour was as much. I like the idea they were patching media into the actual launch control of the attempt, I hope they do that again in January.

Still, wonder what caused such a failure, doesn't fill people with confidence, but what do I know!

[Chris Bergin]

Pleasure Avron.

Terry - I'd soon see them have a few scrubs on the pad to help them learn more about their rocket, than I would for them to launch first time and suffer a loss of vehicle.

The preview story has now been changed to "SpaceX hoping third time's a charm" - with a statement from Elon and some of the timeline of the second attempt scrub. It's wrapped around by the first attempt scrub information, the lawsuit update and the Q and A with SpaceX VP of Development Operations Chris Thompson.

Remember, you can ask questions of Chris, via the thread http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1051&posts=10#M12756 - thanks to Braddock's continuing efforts in bringing the style of access and information this site aims for with all its content.

[FransonUK]

Chris Bergin - 19/12/2005  3:32 PM

Terry - I'd soon see them have a few scrubs on the pad to help them learn more about their rocket, than I would for them to launch first time and suffer a loss of vehicle.

Yeah, when you put it like that. I think this is the first new rocket launch we've seen in a long time? I suppose Delta 4 heavy doesn't count as it's a Delta 4 with two friends on either side.

But yeah, I understand his quote saying they only want to launch if they are 100 percent ready. Isn't doing much for your phone bill though Early night for you at least.

[Chris Bergin]

I think it's important to know the difference between something Boeing's launching and SpaceX. The reason why there's so much interest in this rocket is because while it's a billionaire who's payrolling it, they are attempting - with or without intention - to break what is a monopoly on launch services.

Instead of a launch control full of talented and experienced techs and engineers, with vast resources and experience to hand, they are trying to do this with a handful of people and resources in comparision.

Not only that, but they are aiming for heavy lift, really heavy lift, which then goes past launching satelittes into LEO, into the range of potential Lunar services.

If this all comes off, forgetting the lawsuit for now, they'll shake everything up in the industry, because there's serious competition on a range of services. They'll also encourage others to follow suit - and so on.


Oh, and no early night, there happens to be three major Shuttle stories that I've got to go after more info and quotes for yet. Then there's a load of Russian launches coming up over the coming days, plus the Ariane 5 tomorrow (plus one Russian).

Fun though, isn't it

[Chris Bergin]

Before I go off track - if I - or any of our other writers - get to hear about the reason for the failure, and/or specifics of the first stage damage, we'll post it asap into here.

[Rocket Nut]

Chris Bergin - 19/12/2005  4:50 PM

Instead of a launch control full of talented and experienced techs and engineers, with vast resources and experience to hand, they are trying to do this with a handful of people and resources in comparision.

Not only that, but they are aiming for heavy lift, really heavy lift, which then goes past launching satelittes into LEO, into the range of potential Lunar services.

I am hoping they can make a go of it with no standing army to back them up.  Unfortunately, I have seen a quote recently where a Boeing rep said that if they are successful Boeing would "just buy them out".  If they can build a cheaper and reliable rocket, perhaps we can get more launches from Cape Canaveral.  They had been looking at the old Atlas 2/3 launch pad here...if they can get past the bureaucratic red tape.

Cheers,

Larry

[Davros]

Then Elon needs to be strong and resist any huge offer from Boeing. Take that as a sign they are making some real progress, enough to worry them, and then use the attempt from Boeing to prove he's got something going here for more investors.

[Mark Max Q]

Looks like we get to do this all over again, even if this attempt was not prolonged over four hours like the last one.

Thanks for the updates, interesting reading back and very easy to visualise.

[Orbiter Obvious]

Any news yet on the structural failure?

[braddock]

Update from Elon Musk.  Looks like late January at the earliest.  I wonder what happened?

Posted December 19, 2005: Launch is scrubbed until early next year, as there is a structural issue with the 1st stage fuel tank that will require repair.  I will provide further comment as soon as this has been carefully analyzed.
 
Consistent with our policy, we must be 100% green for launch with no outstanding concerns whatsoever.  It is not just a matter of repairing the damage, but also understanding at a fundamental level how to ensure it never happens again.  We will also do another full review of all the vehicle systems, including propulsion, structures, avionics, software and ground support systems.  Therefore, I expect that the earliest that launch would occur is late January.  Third time's the charm.
 
--- Elon ---

[Chris Bergin]

Orbiter Obvious - 19/12/2005  11:02 PM

Any news yet on the structural failure?

No news yet - and it wasn't a structural failure, it was a structural issue, fault, defect.

[ADC9]

I know there isn't anything official, but could it have been because it had previously been loaded, topped up, loaded and then boiled off to run out of LOX that had a bad effect on the tank when they loaded it again. Seemed to go wrong as soon as they had filled it up and then had some boil off.

[braddock]

New Update from Elon Musk on cause of abort:

"Posted December 19, 2005 at 4:40 p.m. California time: Here is the apparent cause of structural damage (further analysis may change the conclusion):

Due to high winds, we placed the countdown on hold and began draining the fuel tank.  As we drained fuel from the 1st stage tank, a faulty pressurization valve caused a vacuum condition in the tank.  This caused a fuel tank barrel section to deform and suck slightly inward.  It is important to note that the root cause is an electrical fault with a valve, not structural design.

 At this point, it appears that no other damage was sustained to the vehicle or the satellite.  The rocket will be lowered down this afternoon and placed in its hangar for further inspection.
 --- Elon ---"

[Davros]

Oh my, that's serious.

[rubicondsrv]

Davros - 19/12/2005  8:16 PM

Oh my, that's serious.

It is not that bad. they know what caused the problem and it is not a defect in the design of the veichle.  
All they need to do is to repair or replace the damaged tank which is much easier and faster than having either a problem whithout a known cause or a fualt inherant in the design.

[Chris Bergin]

Agreed. That's important.

Although, I'm kinda hoping they have another tank. I'm guessing (really guessing) that it's not a case of getting the panel beaters out to knock it back into shape. Anyone got a clue on how they could get the tank pressed back out into shape if it's easier thank replacing the tank (if they have another.)

[Martin FL]

Hardly sounds all that promising, that much I can tell from the statement. Still, they won't know fully until they've got the tank in a work dock.

[Jamie Young]

Faulty pressurization valve? They don't seem to be lucky with their valves.

[Firestarter]

Jamie Young - 19/12/2005  7:56 PM

Faulty pressurization valve? They don't seem to be lucky with their valves.

It was the loading tank valve the last time, but that was human error I recall.