Author Topic: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 1 Launch 5 (RazakSat) - July 13/14 (Read 361258 times)

ugordan · « **Reply #140 on:** 04/17/2009 11:26 am »

Quote from: jabe on 04/17/2009 11:19 am

6 weeks seems a while to fix a "simple" problem..lets hope for a quicker fix..

Read the release, people. It said at least 6 weeks.

Spacenuts · « **Reply #141 on:** 04/17/2009 12:33 pm »

Of course we are reading a news release. Lets look at the reliability. It might be completely accurate or it might not. SpaceX talks to someone, possibly Hanan. If it is direct to Hanan then from Hanan to the news agency and then to the public. I personally wouldn't place too much on any given word in the release. Too many monkeys in the chain of information to be reliable.

Analyst · « **Reply #142 on:** 04/17/2009 12:38 pm »

You are in principle correct. But keep this also in mind then there is some - at the first look - positive news about SpaceX in the future. Too many monkeys in the chain of information to be reliable also then.

Analyst

ugordan · « **Reply #143 on:** 04/17/2009 12:54 pm »

Quote from: Spacenuts on 04/17/2009 12:33 pm

Of course we are reading a news release. Lets look at the reliability. It might be completely accurate or it might not.

I've seen previous news concerning this launch first broken by news portals such as this one and they turned out to be reliable so far. I don't personally have reasons to doubt the reliability of this one, but we shall see.

Spacenuts · « **Reply #144 on:** 04/17/2009 01:43 pm »

Both reasonable points. Just bring up the point that when trying to get as much information out of a release as possible it is probably not useful to take the phrases "at least six weeks", "six weeks" or "up to six weeks" and make a call on it. There will be a delay? Sure, I'll definitely buy into that. The delay will be longer than six weeks? Sure, very possible. Just sayin' it is all as good as guesses at this point.

Lee Jay · « **Reply #145 on:** 04/17/2009 01:52 pm »

Quote from: jabe on 04/17/2009 11:19 am

will be interesting to hear what the problem is, 6 weeks seems a while to fix a "simple" problem..

Remember the 2 months stand down for the ECO sensor connector on the Shuttle ET?

Analyst · « **Reply #146 on:** 04/17/2009 02:01 pm »

Quote from: Lee Jay on 04/17/2009 01:52 pm

Remember the 2 months stand down for the ECO sensor connector on the Shuttle ET?

1) They should have flown. But NASA is extremely risk averse these days.
2) Shuttle is a little bit more complex than Falcon 1.
3) SpaceX did promise to do things better. Big time. This is the measure they choose themselves.

Analyst

docmordrid · « **Reply #147 on:** 04/17/2009 02:44 pm »

There's the possibility that in unpacking the air shipping container they found damage to the second stage.

Cretan126 · « **Reply #148 on:** 04/17/2009 07:38 pm »

Quote from: ugordan on 04/17/2009 08:31 am

Lo and behold: http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/Frontpage/20090417161214/Article/index_html

"The launch of the RazakSAT, Malaysia's second remote sensing satellite has been postponed until further notice due to "technical problems"."

"Abdul Hanan said SpaceX will be doing the repairs which will take at least six weeks."

Looks like someone just lost a bet...

Thanks, Ugordon.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #149 on:** 04/17/2009 08:01 pm »

Quote from: Analyst on 04/17/2009 02:01 pm

1) They should have flown. But NASA is extremely risk averse these days.

The correct answer is when they first saw the issue with the ECO sensors they should have gotten to the bottom of it and not tried to live with it as long as they did. Same behavior as with the O-Ring issues prior to Challenger, or foam loss prior to Columbia. Living with the symptoms instead standing down and finding the cause and not flying until corrected.

Remember the real issue was cryo pumping inside the LH cable header and not the actual sensors. You just can not take random guesses at this stuff. If it had been solved in the 80's when it first came up we would not even be talking about it.

I hope spaceX when they see an issue gets to the bottom of it instead of trying to live with it. We mere mortals do not have insight, but they do seem to have delayed a few times to get to the bottom of issues. Maybe someone with insight to all launcher issues knows how spaceX handles things

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #150 on:** 04/17/2009 10:04 pm »

Six weeks plus is a long repair time estimate. Either the Malaysian government is giving a worst-case estimate to save face or something pretty fundamental has gone wrong.

The only things I can think of that would require something like this are:

1) Engine integration - They have to pull an engine and some of the fuel system out of the booster. Putting all those pipes back in and testing it is going to be a pain;

2) Avionics integration - They are going to have to pull the IAU out of the F1US, fix some stuff and then wire it back in.

Hmmm... Come to think of it, how long would it take to prep a replacement booster stage at the factory and ship it to the atoll?

jabe · « **Reply #151 on:** 04/17/2009 10:38 pm »

Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 04/17/2009 10:04 pm

Hmmm... Come to think of it, how long would it take to prep a replacement booster stage at the factory and ship it to the atoll?

good point..but looking at the manifest, there doesn't seem to have any F1 on the manifest..only 1e..and it looks like it is late 2010... so they may not have the option to switch...
looking forward to an official update...
jb

A_M_Swallow · « **Reply #152 on:** 04/17/2009 11:03 pm »

Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 04/17/2009 10:04 pm

Six weeks plus is a long repair time estimate. Either the Malaysian government is giving a worst-case estimate to save face or something pretty fundamental has gone wrong.

Or the replacement part is being shipped by boat.

jabe · « **Reply #153 on:** 04/18/2009 12:18 am »

Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 04/17/2009 11:03 pm

Or the replacement part is being shipped by boat.

if that is the case it must be a BIG part or I'd figure they would fly the part out...

MKremer · « **Reply #154 on:** 04/18/2009 12:22 am »

Quote from: jabe on 04/18/2009 12:18 am

Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 04/17/2009 11:03 pm
Or the replacement part is being shipped by boat.
if that is the case it must be a BIG part or I'd figure they would fly the part out...

Unless the part is still being manufactured (as part of an upcoming launch), and still needs to finish final processing and testing before it can ship.

tobi453 · « **Reply #155 on:** 04/18/2009 09:44 am »

Quote

However, Space Exploration Technology (Space X), the company set to launch the satellite, detected vibration at unsafe level on the launch vehicle, said Science, Technology and Innovation Ministry secretary-general Datuk Abdul Hanan Alang Endut in a statement. He said work to fix the problem would take about six weeks to be completed.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/4/18/nation/3723070&sec=nation

madscientist197 · « **Reply #156 on:** 04/18/2009 10:40 am »

Minimally informative article. Vibrations? Surely this isn't something new?

tonthomas · « **Reply #157 on:** 04/18/2009 10:55 am »

Defective part or construction problem?

Spacenuts · « **Reply #158 on:** 04/18/2009 01:21 pm »

Which would be the most likely, difficulty with a part or the acoustical environment for the payload in general? If the it is the environment for the payload would it be due to ground effects and would you fix the environment inside or on the ground?

ugordan · « **Reply #159 on:** 04/18/2009 01:38 pm »

What integration & checkout procedure would unearth a vibration problem? Could it be a problem with rate gyros?