SpaceX Falcon I Launch III - Build-up Thread

[WHAP]

Seems a little premature to assume SpaceX will lay all the blame on the range.  Have you heard something we haven't?

From Spaceflightnow:

The military informed SpaceX last week that mandatory support equipment and tracking stations in the Pacific Ocean are booked through the end of July, forcing officials to delay launch of the next Falcon 1 rocket, the company's founder said Friday.

Sure looks like they're blaming the range to me.  The article goes on to say that they're going to test fire the first stage engine "in the next weeks".  If they were originally planning to launch next week, this hot fire is a pretty quick (and curious) addition to their schedule.

[Malderi]

Could this be a rumor, or just bad news...
The blog noted a "crack". Could be a bad welded, or structural.

Sea water strikes again?

Very nice powerpoint from COMSATC in May.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/industry/advisory_committee/meeting_news/media/2008-05/Hughes.ppt

That sort of PowerPoint does nothing to help their case. I'm a big believer in what SpaceX is going to do, but saying they're offering "reliable low-cost access to space" and have "proven test-as-you-fly" facilities is simply false. They haven't gotten to orbit yet and unless their sims said they'd have propellant sloshing and staging recontacts, it's not proven yet. Marketing hyperbole like that is just stupid.

[iamlucky13]

Seems a little premature to assume SpaceX will lay all the blame on the range.  Have you heard something we haven't?

From Spaceflightnow:

The military informed SpaceX last week that mandatory support equipment and tracking stations in the Pacific Ocean are booked through the end of July, forcing officials to delay launch of the next Falcon 1 rocket, the company's founder said Friday.

Sure looks like they're blaming the range to me.  The article goes on to say that they're going to test fire the first stage engine "in the next weeks".  If they were originally planning to launch next week, this hot fire is a pretty quick (and curious) addition to their schedule.

It doesn't really tell us anything. It sounds like SpaceX had a schedule slip that pushed them into a conflict with the AF schedule. That much seems safe to assume. Whether SpaceX or the AF is really the factor driving the July-August timeframe, we don't know. Same for whether the hot-fire is simply an opportunity for further testing or examining a serious concern.

The tone of your post would almost seem to suggest that SpaceX should launch without the tracking support.

[Analyst]

Remember their first flight? Vandenberg? Titan 4? ...

Analyst

[edkyle99]

SpaceX pushes back target date for next Falcon 1 launch

"The military informed SpaceX last week that mandatory support equipment and tracking stations in the Pacific Ocean are booked through the end of July, forcing officials to delay launch of the next Falcon 1 rocket, the company's founder said Friday."

There's an MDA test in mid-July, some kind of target vehicle launch from Vandenberg in late July, and a Minuteman III test in mid-August.  I wonder how a Falcon can fly before mid-August.

 - Ed Kyle

[antonioe]

We've launched several Pegasi and other big rockets from Kwaj, and we've had to cope with being at the bottom of the totem pole at ETR and WTR.  In all cases, the range unavailable times have been measured in days, not weeks, and all we needed was an open day or two to slip a launch by.

The only cases of week-long range blocking we've experienced where when a necessary major asset (e.g., radar) was down for maintenance, or they were making a large upgrade - the single longest instance I remember was many years ago, when WTR overhauled their entire Tracking and CT chain and had to recertify it.  That brought the range down for 30 days, if my memory serves me right.  Maybe that's what's happening at RTR now.

Plenty of open launch windows at Wallops for the rest of this year...

[StuffOfInterest]

Plenty of open launch windows at Wallops for the rest of this year...

I'd love to see a Falcon 1 launch out of Wallops!  It would be worth the drive down.  Has anyone ever figured out how much payload they would loose from launching that far North?

[aero313]

Remember their first flight? Vandenberg? Titan 4? ...

Analyst

You mean the Titan IV that was the cause of all their first flight delays and that launched - what - about six months before they did?  But no, I'm not skeptical at all.....

[Comga]

Plenty of open launch windows at Wallops for the rest of this year...

It has always been curious that SpaceX did not select Wallops.  Musk could have driven his original Falcon 1 there in a few hours when he brought it to the East coast. Although they may not have learned much touring around with a rocket in tow,  it would have been more technically productive than parking it on the street in DC.

Think of all the advantages of Wallops over Kawajalein.  Foremost is that you can drive there.  Musk proved that advantage by driving the #1 F1 across the country. (twice!) You can make a phone call and get tanker trucks of LOX in a day.  There is scheduled airline service to nearby airports.  Electric power and running water. Amenities. Even proximity to the a state capital, the national capital, with their potential supporters, and NASA HQ, a potential customer.

What are the drawbacks that would have interfered with their development?  Latitude?  Launch azimuths? Payload is not the most pressing issue.  A successful launch is.  Perhaps it was the lack of good scuba diving.    

[Antares]

This is a rocket problem that causes a small slip to ship a new part to Kwaj.  Then we get a range conflict for the rest of the slip.

While I don't like SpaceX's spin, I don't like NASA's or USAF's or Boeing's or LM's or ULA's or Orbital's either.  But if customers, the media and the blogosphere weren't so judgment happy, these organizations trying to do something hard might actually be straight with us.  (Some might claim pot-kettle on me for my anti-Ares stridence, but in that case most of us have data to show there's easier ways than Ares.)

My personal opinion is that SpaceX is getting screwed whenever possible by RTS.  I've never seen such conflicts on ETR/WTR.  But I have no data to back that up.  Elon needs to call Mark Cuban and look for "correlations."

[Analyst]

Remember their first flight? Vandenberg? Titan 4? ...

Analyst

You mean the Titan IV that was the cause of all their first flight delays and that launched - what - about six months before they did?  But no, I'm not skeptical at all.....

Yup. They did blame the range before. It has been a joke back then.

As for logistics: I never understood why they moved from mainland USA to a small island in the middle of nowhere. Only explanation I can think of: They are unable to meet the range standards of CCAFS, WI or WTR.

Analyst

[Antares]

Only explanation I can think of: They are unable to meet the range standards of CCAFS, WI or WTR.

False.  The FAA has said otherwise regarding the SpaceX license application (including range documentation).

[kraisee]

I don't mind another month of delays if it helps them resolve issues.

I'd far rather they take the necessary time to get it right than just chase a schedule.

The more bugs they can fix on the ground now, the fewer they can encounter in the air...

Ross.

[kraisee]

As for logistics: I never understood why they moved from mainland USA to a small island in the middle of nowhere. Only explanation I can think of: They are unable to meet the range standards of CCAFS, WI or WTR.

I think its just a matter of keeping the costs down.   They knew that the first few tests would quite possibly end up in the drink, and Kwaj is a lot less costly to qualify to fly from than CCAFS is.   You need CCAFS/VAFB for operational use, but a cheaper site for testing isn't a bad way to save money in the development phase.

Ross.

[antonioe]

Kwaj is a lot less costly to qualify to fly from than CCAFS is.

Hmm... that's not our experience... RTS is not much different from ETR/WTR in terms of flight termination requirements, documentation, ground safety, etc... plus, lacking downrange assets, they must deploy P3's and the Worthy (a ship carrying radar and Command Destruct transmitters) if you want/need downrange coverage.  Transportation costs are a bummer compared with CCAFS, especially if you are doing development... not such a big difference for operational flights, although in my limited experience Wallops is lower cost that either.

That said, the RTS people are very friendly and helpful.  But so are the Wallops guys (and gals).

[Analyst]

So does anyone can offer a reason for them moving to RTS? From the posts here I don't see it being cheaper or better from a logistic point of view. Until then, I stay with my opinion.

Analyst

(Maybe they wanted to avoid pictures of exploding rockets? Has there ever been a picture of the first flight landing in the water?)

[JesseD]

(Maybe they wanted to avoid pictures of exploding rockets? Has there ever been a picture of the first flight landing in the water?)

I don't think so -- and I can certainly understand that!  I mean, if they had released that picture, that would have been their 'legacy' until they had a successful flight.  I can just imagine anytime someone on this board posted something positive or hopeful about SpaceX, someone would reply with that picture.

What I mean is there are 'iconic' photos that have strong associations in people's minds.  SpaceX didn't want theirs to be a rocket failing helplessly towards the ocean.

[aero313]

So does anyone can offer a reason for them moving to RTS?

Well, sun sync from Wallops is not the easiest thing to do.  Neither are low inclination orbits.  With the exception of COTS, those are the two orbital inclinations where there is a proven market for launch services.

(Sorry, Antonio...)

[Analyst]

But is there any infrastructure (or planned infrastructure) to do these money making flights from RTS? I don't see any.

Analyst

[Cretan126]

I don't know why we're being so hard on SpaceX regarding their launch slip.  After all, according to their manifest (http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php)  the new measure of meeting schedule is the arrival of hardware at the launch site. Obviously, all slips after that point are implicitly the fault of the Range and/or payload!
C-CXXVI