That they haven't done that, or at least aren't saying they have, suggests it's something they feel is fixable in a timely fashion.
Quote from: Jim on 05/20/2011 02:53 amQuote from: Halidon on 05/20/2011 02:32 amAs for "tarnish," I'm pleased to see their inspection and quality control program is doing well. Much rather find problems now that at T+1:30There was an escape, since the tank became a stage.jimvela echos a point that I have been making. It is easy to design and build a rocket. The hard part is doing it over and over again successfully. It is things like this that increase the costs of doing business in the launch arena. Things just keep popping. Here is another scenario of something that could go "wrong' and cause delays. While waiting for the second stage, the first stage just sits there. Time goes by and eventually the second stage is delivered. It becomes time to mate the stages and guess what? They don't fit, it seems that the 1st stage developed a little ovality. So they develop a fix and press on. But again, more costs were incurred. The crack in the nozzle was another thing. This is what happens time after time. Making a launch vehicle reliable takes people, which aren't cheap.Yep. Consider that the first Saturn V S-IC propellant tanks were scrapped due to bad welds. A bad weld repair caused an S-II bulkhead to fail during testing. The first Saturn V had to be de-stacked when cracks were found in S-II stage welds. An S-IVB flight stage exploded during an acceptance test when a pressurant tank weld failed. Bad welds caused plenty of problems with early Atlas and Centaur stages. Most of the early Titan missiles leaked. And so on. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: Halidon on 05/20/2011 02:32 amAs for "tarnish," I'm pleased to see their inspection and quality control program is doing well. Much rather find problems now that at T+1:30There was an escape, since the tank became a stage.jimvela echos a point that I have been making. It is easy to design and build a rocket. The hard part is doing it over and over again successfully. It is things like this that increase the costs of doing business in the launch arena. Things just keep popping. Here is another scenario of something that could go "wrong' and cause delays. While waiting for the second stage, the first stage just sits there. Time goes by and eventually the second stage is delivered. It becomes time to mate the stages and guess what? They don't fit, it seems that the 1st stage developed a little ovality. So they develop a fix and press on. But again, more costs were incurred. The crack in the nozzle was another thing. This is what happens time after time. Making a launch vehicle reliable takes people, which aren't cheap.
As for "tarnish," I'm pleased to see their inspection and quality control program is doing well. Much rather find problems now that at T+1:30
Nikita Sergeyevich Khruschev?
There are weld defects on the second stage:http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/advisory_committee/meeting_news/media/2011/may/Alexander.pptx
There are weld defects on the second stage:
Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) is delaying until at least Dec. 8 the debut flight of its Dragon capsule due to a potential problem with a nozzle in the Falcon 9 launcher’s second-stage engine.... The problem appears to be in a weld joint, which showed indications of “porosity and cracking,” Shotwell says.
they can consult with IBM,HP and Intel
It's probably wiser for me refrain from comments until I know the extent of any problems in the chain. It may simply be growing pains as happens with any business including my own. A good management team will overcome these initial problems before moving on to full production. Spacex is still in the testing phase of COTS and Falcon 9 and can expect disruptions.
Dragon's computers are not radiation hardened ?!
Who says they are using standard PC chips? I don't think SpaceX has ever disclosed any specifics of their avionics hardware or flight software, except the odd tidbit that can be guessed from choice of subcontractors. Even if they aren't using one of the rad-hard CPUs, it's far more likely they are using established embedded platforms and one of the conventional RTOSes.
