LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 1 Launch 5 (RazakSat) - July 13/14

[butters]

It seems more likely that they learned something new about the vibration tolerance of the payload than about the launch vehicle environment, right?

[ugordan]

It seems more likely that they learned something new about the vibration tolerance of the payload than about the launch vehicle environment, right?

"a potential compatibility issue" is precisely that. It doesn't really matter at this point whether it's F1 exceeding predicted limits or the satellite being too sensitive or both, it needs to be fixed and the way to fix it is at the vehicle-satellite interface. Whether it'll be acoustic blankets or payload adapter modifications, the fix will be done on the vehicle, not the satellite. It's a good thing the satellite isn't maxed out to F1 payload capacity so there's a good deal of mass margin left.

As they say, the customer is always right.

[kch]

they can't win no matter what they do...

Sure they can. They can succeed. Opinions on an internet forum + $0.50 won't buy you coffee.

That's for sure!  Tried it at McD's the other day -- they just looked at me funny ...

[Antares]

I disagree with those statements about the relative culpability on this environments issue.  It sounds to me like the launch vehicle isn't obeying the ICD, not the spacecraft.  At this point, the knobs to fix it are on the launch vehicle no matter which is at fault.  However, all of the language says that the launch vehicle is the source of the violation, not that the spacecraft was under-designed.  Either that or SpaceX is really allowing their customer to save face.

[stockman]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/Launches042109.xml&headline=Sea%20Launch%20Flies;%20SpaceX%20Does%20Not&channel=space

Sea Launch Flies; SpaceX Does Not

Yea and last year it could have read - SpaceX Flies, Sea launch explodes..

[Herb Schaltegger]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/Launches042109.xml&headline=Sea%20Launch%20Flies;%20SpaceX%20Does%20Not&channel=space

Sea Launch Flies; SpaceX Does Not

Yea and last year it could have read - SpaceX Flies, Sea launch explodes..

Let's be precise, shall we?  The Sea-Launch failure you refer to was in early 2007.  How many successful Sea-Launch launches have there been since then?  How many successful SpaceX launches have there been in the same timeframe?   

(And that's not even mentioning the difference in payload or trajectories obtained).

[stockman]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/Launches042109.xml&headline=Sea%20Launch%20Flies;%20SpaceX%20Does%20Not&channel=space

Sea Launch Flies; SpaceX Does Not

Yea and last year it could have read - SpaceX Flies, Sea launch explodes..

Let's be precise, shall we?  The Sea-Launch failure you refer to was in early 2007.  How many successful Sea-Launch launches have there been since then?  How many successful SpaceX launches have there been in the same timeframe?   

(And that's not even mentioning the difference in payload or trajectories obtained).

Chill... its not meant to be a pissing contest here... it was just the headline was as meaningful as the one I posted..ok I was off a year. big deal...

now back on topic...

[ugordan]

Well, they might as well release the static fire video since that's all the action we'll see from them for a couple of months...

All in all, as others have noted, this actually could be a sign of maturity on their part. They seem to have stopped with the practice of making changes here and there and just throwing it up and seeing what happens (I know, an oversimplification) instead of really analysing and understanding all the potential side-effects.

[Cretan126]

I'm surprised they don't have a photo of the vehicle on the pad at Omelek.

They don't have a photo of the vehicle at the pad because it's not scheduled to be on the pad yet. That's coming up at L-5 days.

Also, there are photos of the hangar/tent, although not official ones. CorrodedNut posted links to a few galleries a while ago here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=9958.msg341963#msg341963

Apparently the vehicle WAS on the pad during this exchange since this is the day they reportedly did the static fire.  But they were most likely too preoccupied with their vibration issue to worry about posting a picture - and figuring out how to unlease a smokescreen with the F9 Argentine missions announcement.

[Cretan126]

Well, they might as well release the static fire video since that's all the action we'll see from them for a couple of months...

All in all, as others have noted, this actually could be a sign of maturity on their part. They seem to have stopped with the practice of making changes here and there and just throwing it up and seeing what happens (I know, an oversimplification) instead of really analysing and understanding all the potential side-effects.

I wouldn't consider it a sign of technical maturity.  Finding out during a static fire less than a week before launch that you have a violation of your ICD environments levels is a sign of lack of maturity in the understanding of the integrated vehicle system.  All of the 'analysing and understanding the potential side-effects' should have been done well before they got to the pad.  After four prior launch attempts, including multiple static fires on the pad and numerous tests in Texas, I would expect them to have a good handle on their dynamic environments.  Apparently they don't. 

[Spacenuts]

"and figuring out how to unlease a smokescreen with the F9 Argentine missions announcement."

Please enlighten us.  You clearly have inside information concerning the news release.  Perhaps some inside memo showing that the two new flights are bogus?  Maybe the "info" shows that SpaceX signed those flights up months ago and they were just holdin' them close to the chest in case they needed a "smoke screen".   From my vantage point I have to say its pure speculation on your part. 

Now am I suspicious about the timing of the press release?  Maybe just a little but I will not begrudge them their good news no matter when they release it so long as it is true.  On the other hand I would have to say that your choice of words leaves me with a much clearer view of your bias than of the timing of SpaceX's news release.

[ugordan]

Well, they might as well release the static fire video since that's all the action we'll see from them for a couple of months...

All in all, as others have noted, this actually could be a sign of maturity on their part. They seem to have stopped with the practice of making changes here and there and just throwing it up and seeing what happens (I know, an oversimplification) instead of really analysing and understanding all the potential side-effects.

I wouldn't consider it a sign of technical maturity.  Finding out during a static fire less than a week before launch that you have a violation of your ICD environments levels is a sign of lack of maturity in the understanding of the integrated vehicle system. 

So, when this sort of last-minute delay happens to Herschel/Planck and Ariane 5 it's OK, because "that's what last minute checks and verifications are for", but if it happens to SpaceX it's a sign of incompetence? In any case, I didn't say technical maturity, I meant their general, more serious approach to the payload safety.

Frankly, at this point you have no argument and knowledge of reasons what exactly prompted them to delay so these smokescreen accusations are nothing but weak speculation on your part.

[kevin-rf]

I wouldn't consider it a sign of technical maturity.  Finding out during a static fire less than a week before launch that you have a violation of your ICD environments levels is a sign of lack of maturity in the understanding of the integrated vehicle system. 

What makes you think this came out of the static firing and not some detailed back room analysis totally unrelated to the static firing?

Please provide some proof... SpaceX has not release what part of the flight this issue occurs in and the static firings are just start the first stage engine and shut down.

[Cretan126]

"and figuring out how to unlease a smokescreen with the F9 Argentine missions announcement."

Please enlighten us.  You clearly have inside information concerning the news release.  Perhaps some inside memo showing that the two new flights are bogus?  Maybe the "info" shows that SpaceX signed those flights up months ago and they were just holdin' them close to the chest in case they needed a "smoke screen".   From my vantage point I have to say its pure speculation on your part. 

Now am I suspicious about the timing of the press release?  Maybe just a little but I will not begrudge them their good news no matter when they release it so long as it is true.  On the other hand I would have to say that your choice of words leaves me with a much clearer view of your bias than of the timing of SpaceX's news release.

No, I don't have any inside information.  I've just observed a pattern over the last few years that a splashy positive announcement by SpaceX often precedes a less emphasized negative one, such as a launch slip.  I admit it is only conjecture that is anything other that coincidence,  the facts are that it has happened a number of times.  And I'll also admit that I'm sceptical of SpaceX's claims.  I also see a lot of blind hope and faith in their success here and elsewhere - I trying to provide a reality check and point out the emperor may be missing a few articles of clothing.

[Cretan126]

I wouldn't consider it a sign of technical maturity.  Finding out during a static fire less than a week before launch that you have a violation of your ICD environments levels is a sign of lack of maturity in the understanding of the integrated vehicle system. 

What makes you think this came out of the static firing and not some detailed back room analysis totally unrelated to the static firing?

Please provide some proof... SpaceX has not release what part of the flight this issue occurs in and the static firings are just start the first stage engine and shut down.

Yes, I was extrapolating that something showed up in the static fire test that gave rise to the vibration issue.  But I do think that is the most likely explanation.  Hopefully, SpaceX will tell us for sure give time.  But go double-or-nothing on those bragging rights that it did arise from the static fire!

[yinzer]

A Pegasus launch got delayed a few years back when a review discovered unexpected second stage ignition loads. This happens to the bigger guys, too.

[Chris-A]

Flight 5 has slipped under the radar with little news...
I don't even hear the crickets

[McDew]

Flight 5 has slipped under the radar with little news...
I don't even hear the crickets

The news I heard indicates that both parties(especially the SC side) did a lousy job on the basic integration requirements, analyses, design, compatibility and verification.  Connectors were not even compatible.  Concerns now exist about design margins on the spacecraft.  Spacecraft may need to be shipped back to the factory.

[ugordan]

That's kind of hilarious. And sad. If that's the case, the utter silence from both parties doesn't surprise me anymore.

Concerns about design margins on the spacecraft or on the LV? Wasn't ATSB already involved in a prior F1 flight to acquire integration experience, etc?

[McDew]

That's kind of hilarious. And sad. If that's the case, the utter silence from both parties doesn't surprise me anymore.

Concerns about design margins on the spacecraft or on the LV? Wasn't ATSB already involved in a prior F1 flight to acquire integration experience, etc?

My understanding is that the spacecraft was not designed with robust margins.  So any significant updates in the environments, loads, analyses or any evaluation of them could cause problems.