Author Topic: LIVE: SpaceX Falcon 1 Launch 5 (RazakSat) - July 13/14 (Read 386314 times)

Analyst · « **Reply #180 on:** 04/20/2009 02:16 pm »

We don't know anything other than the customer says it is a launch vehicle issue and yet folks try to find explanations why it is not SpaceX's fault, why it is excuseable ... nada nada nada. Why? Other missions have delays too. SpaceX has the problem they promised much more than they deliver. EELVs did the same, but not this extreme.

Analyst

jabe · « **Reply #181 on:** 04/20/2009 02:18 pm »

official update is here.

Jim · « **Reply #182 on:** 04/20/2009 02:28 pm »

Quote from: Spacenuts on 04/20/2009 02:06 pm

1. while at the same time the Falcon 1 in its current configuration also comes close to being maxed out?

2. Then during final checks someone spoke up and said "Hey! Shouldn't we have more margin for error here?" G

1. There isn't a "maxed out" wrt LV environments. They are what they are. The only thing spacex can do is either better define the environments *(more flights with instrumentation) or have attenuation hardware either on the adapter or more acoustic blankets on the fairing.

* At this point in the development, spacex should have large margins because of limited flight data set.

2. "final checks" would be just analysis.

Another possibility is that the coupled loads analysis found that the spacecraft and LV have natural frequencies too close to each other

ugordan · « **Reply #183 on:** 04/20/2009 02:54 pm »

Quote from: Analyst on 04/20/2009 02:16 pm

We don't know anything other than the customer says it is a launch vehicle issue and yet folks try to find explanations why it is not SpaceX's fault, why it is excuseable ... nada nada nada. Why? Other missions have delays too. SpaceX has the problem they promised much more than they deliver. EELVs did the same, but not this extreme.

There are a couple of apologetic posts and the other majority in my view seem to be concentrated on something being SpaceX' own issue. Why do you (and this is the second time I've seen you do this) pick on the apologetic few and neglect the majority of other posts?

kkattula · « **Reply #184 on:** 04/20/2009 03:20 pm »

From the SpaceX update:

"While both the Falcon 1 vehicle and satellite passed all preliminary checkouts and are cleared for launch, a concern has been identified regarding the potential impact of predicted vehicle environments on the satellite. Based on these concerns, the SpaceX team is evaluating options to minimize this impact and ensure mission success."

Given the previous mention of "vibration", natural frequency coupling sounds likely to me.

stexer · « **Reply #185 on:** 04/20/2009 03:22 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 04/20/2009 02:28 pm

Quote from: Spacenuts on 04/20/2009 02:06 pm
1. while at the same time the Falcon 1 in its current configuration also comes close to being maxed out?

2. Then during final checks someone spoke up and said "Hey! Shouldn't we have more margin for error here?" G

1. There isn't a "maxed out" wrt LV environments. They are what they are. The only thing spacex can do is either better define the environments *(more flights with instrumentation) or have attenuation hardware either on the adapter or more acoustic blankets on the fairing.

* At this point in the development, spacex should have large margins because of limited flight data set.

2. "final checks" would be just analysis.

Another possibility is that the coupled loads analysis found that the spacecraft and LV have natural frequencies too close to each other

Official release is pretty vague. I'll put my bet on natural frequencies being the cause. Seems like they are just being extra cautious with this one, smart move.

stockman · « **Reply #186 on:** 04/20/2009 03:27 pm »

yea its amazing... when they have an on pad abort but push to launch in the same window instead of standing down for weeks and months to fix the perceived problem - they get roundly criticized.

Now they discover a potential problem and actually do stand down for several weeks to fix the problem - and they get criticized...

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

R.Simko · « **Reply #187 on:** 04/20/2009 03:40 pm »

Can anyone answer these questions.

1. How does Falcon 1 compare to other launchers on the market in relation to vibration issues?

2. How does/or will Falcon 1E compare to other launchers on the market in relation to vibration issues?

3. How does/or will Falcon 9 compare to other launchers on the market in relation to vibration issues?

Thanks for any info you can give.

cuddihy · « **Reply #188 on:** 04/20/2009 03:44 pm »

They can't win with the amazing peoples or the haters...but you know, no one ever does. amazing peoples will be amazing peoples and hatehs will be hatehs.

SpaceX appears to be largely done with *intentional* overpromising, based on some recent indications of growing maturity, like taking the launch months off of their launch schedule.

It's definitely a good sign that they made the decision to postpone rather than attempt a bad launch.

Jim · « **Reply #189 on:** 04/20/2009 04:04 pm »

Quote from: R.Simko on 04/20/2009 03:40 pm

Can anyone answer these questions.

1. How does Falcon 1 compare to other launchers on the market in relation to vibration issues?

2. How does/or will Falcon 1E compare to other launchers on the market in relation to vibration issues?

3. How does/or will Falcon 9 compare to other launchers on the market in relation to vibration issues?

what do you mean "compare"? There is no real figure of merit. All ELVs have dynamic environments and they are some what similar.

kkattula · « **Reply #190 on:** 04/20/2009 04:12 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 04/20/2009 04:04 pm

Quote from: R.Simko on 04/20/2009 03:40 pm
Can anyone answer these questions.

1. How does Falcon 1 compare to other launchers on the market in relation to vibration issues?

2. How does/or will Falcon 1E compare to other launchers on the market in relation to vibration issues?

3. How does/or will Falcon 9 compare to other launchers on the market in relation to vibration issues?

what do you mean "compare"? There is no real figure of merit. All ELVs have dynamic environments and they are some what similar.

Except for Ares I (ok, only a partial ELV ... probably)

Antares · « **Reply #191 on:** 04/20/2009 04:18 pm »

Quote from: R.Simko on 04/20/2009 03:40 pm

Can anyone answer these questions.

Sigh. Payload planners guides.

Falcon 1 http://www.spacex.com/Falcon1UsersGuide.pdf See pp.24-29

Falcon 9 http://www.spacex.com/Falcon9UsersGuide_2009.pdf See pp.33-36

William Barton · « **Reply #192 on:** 04/20/2009 04:25 pm »

Short of finding tobacco-company-class internal documents to the effect, I don't know how you'd go about distinguishing "intentional overpromising" from simple overconfidence. Sooner or later, SpaceX has to show they can get payloads off successfully, on time. But for right now, learning important lessons before the rocket leaves the ground, and learning them on the little rocket instead of the big one, is probably a good thing. To quote Emerson: "These are occasions a good learner would not miss."

Nomadd · « **Reply #193 on:** 04/20/2009 04:30 pm »

Quote from: Antares on 04/20/2009 04:18 pm

Quote from: R.Simko on 04/20/2009 03:40 pm
Can anyone answer these questions.

Sigh. Payload planners guides.

Falcon 1 http://www.spacex.com/Falcon1UsersGuide.pdf See pp.24-29

Falcon 9 http://www.spacex.com/Falcon9UsersGuide_2009.pdf See pp.33-36

It looks like all the vibration charts are for max payload, so a light payload like this would require custom figures from Spacex.
I wonder if these figures might have changed from earlier guides due to data from the F1 launches.
Something like passing vibration and g loads but forgetting to figure the two together wouldn't be any more shocking that forgetting the doppler shift on, oh... say a Mothership/Titan lander link.

SIM city · « **Reply #194 on:** 04/20/2009 04:33 pm »

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Emily Shanklin | Director, Marketing and Communications
[email protected]
310.363.6733
RAZAKSAT LAUNCH POSTPONED
________________________________________
Hawthorne, CA (April 20, 2009) – Due to a potential compatibility issue between the RazakSAT spacecraft and Falcon 1 launch vehicle, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) and Astronautic Technology (M) Sdn Bhd (ATSB) have agreed to postpone the launch of ATSB's RazakSAT satellite.
While both the Falcon 1 vehicle and satellite passed all preliminary checkouts and are cleared for launch, a concern has been identified regarding the potential impact of predicted vehicle environments on the satellite. Based on these concerns, the SpaceX team is evaluating options to minimize this impact and ensure mission success.
"SpaceX is committed to the safety and success of our customer's payloads," said Elon Musk, CEO and CTO of SpaceX. "Our engineers are addressing this issue and we look forward to launching RazakSAT once the issue is fully understood and resolved."
"Both teams are confident the issue will be resolved," said Dr. Ahmad Sabirin, CEO of ATSB. "We are all looking forward to a successful launch."
Updates and information regarding a new launch date will be available on www.SpaceX.com.

bad_astra · « **Reply #195 on:** 04/21/2009 01:36 pm »

Quote from: stockman on 04/20/2009 03:27 pm

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.

jabe · « **Reply #196 on:** 04/22/2009 01:42 am »

From the Hyperbola blog, Rob got a reply back from Spacex from an inquiry about the launch issue. Check the blog entry..don't want him to lose any traffic to his site since he did the digging

Looks like they did do a successful static fire test.
jb

Ronsmytheiii · « **Reply #197 on:** 04/22/2009 04:32 am »

Quote from: jabe on 04/22/2009 01:42 am

Looks like they did do a successful static fire test.

Static fires seem to be filler for me, with a well oiled launch flow it would not be needed (look at ULA, Sealaunch, everyone else)

kkattula · « **Reply #198 on:** 04/22/2009 04:48 am »

Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 04/22/2009 04:32 am

Quote from: jabe on 04/22/2009 01:42 am
Looks like they did do a successful static fire test.

Static fires seem to be filler for me, with a well oiled launch flow it would not be needed (look at ULA, Sealaunch, everyone else)

If you've got a robust engine capable of multiple firings, automated fueling and pad operations, and plenty of time on the pad, why wouldn't you conduct a static test fire before launching a multi-million dollar rocket?

osiossim · « **Reply #199 on:** 04/22/2009 07:37 am »

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