Author Topic: Second launch attempt for Space-X? (Read 9772 times)

PurduesUSAFguy · « **on:** 07/02/2006 05:42 am »

Hello all,

I was just wondering if anyone had heard a date floated for the next launch (hopefully not launch attempt

) for the Falcon-1. Are they just working on a fix for the fire or are they waiting for the regenerative nozel version of the Merlin to be ready.

For that matter has anyone heard anything more on their Dragon capsule since the news release?

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #1 on:** 07/02/2006 06:15 am »

Another military guy? Starting to think I should have gone Air Force rather than Army

SpaceX Launch Manifest.

DARPA / Air Force Demo 1 Q1 2006 (Launched (sorta) in March 2006)
DARPA / Air Force Demo 2 Q4 2006 (Rumours of October)
NRL / OFT TacSat 1 Q4 2006 (Depends on ^^)
Malaysia RazakSat Q3 2007
SpaceDev Q2 2008
MDA Corp Q3 2008
Swedish Space Corp. Q4 2009

Falcon 9
US Government Q1 2008
MDA Corp Q2 2008
Bigelow Aerospace Q4 2008

dutch courage · « **Reply #2 on:** 07/03/2006 06:28 pm »

At first Space-X were very open and had regular updates on their site. After their failed launch they pretty much clamped up.

Benny · « **Reply #3 on:** 07/04/2006 02:22 pm »

Tell me about it. I could have sworn that they said they would keep updating their HP with finding regarding
the first failed attempt.

I hope they´re not also starting the secrecy stuff like a lot of their competitors (Blue Origin, Scaled etc.).

Crispy · « **Reply #4 on:** 07/04/2006 03:15 pm »

Weren't they cooperating with USAF on the failure report? I imagine those guys have rather strict rules regarding release of info. I suspect they'll do a massive burst of info once the report is completed.

wannamoonbase · « **Reply #5 on:** 07/05/2006 01:58 am »

Quote

Benny - 4/7/2006 9:09 AM

Tell me about it. I could have sworn that they said they would keep updating their HP with finding regarding
the first failed attempt.

I hope they´re not also starting the secrecy stuff like a lot of their competitors (Blue Origin, Scaled etc.).

More Peers than competitors. Until one of these companies puts something in orbit they are not competitors.

I wish them success but will remain skeptical till it works and delivers a payload. (That said SpaceX has accomplished far more than any other Rocket start up, and more than some smaller national programs too)

Crispy · « **Reply #6 on:** 07/05/2006 08:58 am »

I believe they have a working rocket. They just need to have more rigorous procedures. I think it's sinking in that, although there are many efficiencies to be made, you can't launch a rocket with the same skeleton crew that you launch an internet startup

mlorrey · « **Reply #7 on:** 07/05/2006 07:10 pm »

The need for employees to follow a checklist procedure whenever they work on the vehicle is evident. It is not evident that they need a big standing army to accomplish that.

Jim · « **Reply #8 on:** 07/05/2006 07:20 pm »

Quote

mlorrey - 5/7/2006 2:57 PM

The need for employees to follow a checklist procedure whenever they work on the vehicle is evident. It is not evident that they need a big standing army to accomplish that.

The problem is they can't be counted on. Therefore two man rules and QA inspectors are the crutch.

mr.columbus · « **Reply #9 on:** 07/05/2006 08:14 pm »

Quote

mlorrey - 5/7/2006 2:57 PM

The need for employees to follow a checklist procedure whenever they work on the vehicle is evident. It is not evident that they need a big standing army to accomplish that.

The number of employees needed also depends on the complexity and size of the rocket. What I still do not see is why SpaceX seems to treat a Falcon 1 and a Falcon 9 rocket in the same way in all its public announcements (back when they still made things about their company public)- it's hardly the same to launch a 600kg payload launcher and a 10ton payload launcher.

We will see, for now I am still puzzled why SpaceX seems to be pushing back the second launch attempt of a Falcon month by month (it's now October, is it?)and am waiting for any news on their website.

mlorrey · « **Reply #10 on:** 07/06/2006 12:15 am »

Quote

Jim - 5/7/2006 2:07 PM

Quote
mlorrey - 5/7/2006 2:57 PM

The need for employees to follow a checklist procedure whenever they work on the vehicle is evident. It is not evident that they need a big standing army to accomplish that.

The problem is they can't be counted on. Therefore two man rules and QA inspectors are the crutch.

Ah, bull. If they were union workers, you'd be right. All Musk has to set as policy is, as stated in another thread: you break it, you bought it. I never needed a two man rule or a QA inspector to make me follow the checklist...

Jim · « **Reply #11 on:** 07/06/2006 12:31 am »

I have a problem with QA but the two man rule is good for safety and human failings.

mlorrey · « **Reply #12 on:** 07/06/2006 09:48 pm »

Quote

Jim - 5/7/2006 7:18 PM

I have a problem with QA but the two man rule is good for safety and human failings.

Generally, I find that cross training your people, and having folks who are already there check each others work, is all you need. This internalizes the TQM within the existing workforce and establishes a "buddy" system that can deal with safety issues as well as differences in training curve positions.

Documenting every step is followed with initialing and time stamping completes the documentation of QA in the production process in the workforce. This is a long dealt with technological solution.

R&R · « **Reply #13 on:** 07/07/2006 03:34 pm »

Quote

mlorrey - 6/7/2006 6:02 PM

Quote
Jim - 5/7/2006 2:07 PM

Quote
mlorrey - 5/7/2006 2:57 PM

The need for employees to follow a checklist procedure whenever they work on the vehicle is evident. It is not evident that they need a big standing army to accomplish that.

The problem is they can't be counted on. Therefore two man rules and QA inspectors are the crutch.

Ah, bull. If they were union workers, you'd be right. All Musk has to set as policy is, as stated in another thread: you break it, you bought it. I never needed a two man rule or a QA inspector to make me follow the checklist...

That's the kind of attitude that eventually leads to the failures by the people doing the job. Nobody is perfect and you don't just blindly follow a checklist. Another problem is when one person does the same work every time they start to think they know it by heart and stop paying attention to the checklist.

Checklists are only good to a point. It's having the extra eyes on the job that pick up when the checklist is missing something or needs more because of changes in conditions. and makes sure each check is done it's too easy for one person to run down a list and miss one item because they think they already did it.

The "Standing Army" label is very loosely used when referring to how many people work on other programs e.g. Atlas & Delta. I'll agree those guys have more than they need but they get the advantage of other people looking at a procedure, checklist, software etc. and saying what about if this? or are you sure about that? One guy can write the best checklist in the world or so he/she thinks but another person will inevitably see something that under the right conditions will be a problem

R&R · « **Reply #14 on:** 07/07/2006 03:34 pm »

Quote

mlorrey - 6/7/2006 6:02 PM

Quote
Jim - 5/7/2006 2:07 PM

Quote
mlorrey - 5/7/2006 2:57 PM

The need for employees to follow a checklist procedure whenever they work on the vehicle is evident. It is not evident that they need a big standing army to accomplish that.

The problem is they can't be counted on. Therefore two man rules and QA inspectors are the crutch.

Ah, bull. If they were union workers, you'd be right. All Musk has to set as policy is, as stated in another thread: you break it, you bought it. I never needed a two man rule or a QA inspector to make me follow the checklist...

That's the kind of attitude that eventually leads to the failures by the people doing the job. Nobody is perfect and you don't just blindly follow a checklist. Another problem is when one person does the same work every time they start to think they know it by heart and stop paying attention to the checklist.

Checklists are only good to a point. It's having the extra eyes on the job that pick up when the checklist is missing something or needs more because of changes in conditions. and makes sure each check is done it's too easy for one person to run down a list and miss one item because they think they already did it.

The "Standing Army" label is very loosely used when referring to how many people work on other programs e.g. Atlas & Delta. I'll agree those guys have more than they need but they get the advantage of other people looking at a procedure, checklist, software etc. and saying what about if this? or are you sure about that? One guy can write the best checklist in the world or so he/she thinks but another person will inevitably see something that under the right conditions will be a problem

Jim · « **Reply #15 on:** 07/07/2006 03:40 pm »

Quote

mlorrey - 6/7/2006 5:35 PM

Quote
Jim - 5/7/2006 7:18 PM

I have a problem with QA but the two man rule is good for safety and human failings.

Generally, I find that cross training your people, and having folks who are already there check each others work, is all you need. This internalizes the TQM within the existing workforce and establishes a "buddy" system that can deal with safety issues as well as differences in training curve positions.

Documenting every step is followed with initialing and time stamping completes the documentation of QA in the production process in the workforce. This is a long dealt with technological solution.

That's it exactly. I have been on programs where we had Tech or Eng witness/verify, no additional quality inspector. Our Quality Engineers reviewed the procdures for inspection points and only did occasional surveillance.

guidanceisgo · « **Reply #16 on:** 07/18/2006 05:09 am »

Why does everyone "believe" Elon has a working rocket? They ignited the first stage, it created thrust, and was shut down before going supersonic. Elon claims this flight checked out all the systems. (He even created a add in one of the trades).
Loads have been verified .... before ever flying through max q
Guidance has been verified ... before leaving open loop guidance
Controls design has been verified .... before every flying through max q
Environments have been verified .... Sure hope the liftoff environments are the max
Navigation has been verified .... over 5000 feet and 500 feet in longitude and latitude
Launch procedures have been .... opps wait, we will fix it next time
Got the picture.
Elon still has to get through max q, cleanly separate, ignite stage 2, potentially perform a restart, exercise orbital guidance, perform a CCAM, and successfully separate the spacecraft. He had static fired before launching. The last launch he did the same thing, except he let it leave the pad.

aero313 · « **Reply #17 on:** 07/18/2006 02:19 pm »

Quote

guidanceisgo - 18/7/2006 12:56 AM

Why does everyone "believe" Elon has a working rocket? They ignited the first stage, it created thrust, and was shut down before going supersonic. Elon claims this flight checked out all the systems. (He even created a add in one of the trades).
Loads have been verified .... before ever flying through max q
Guidance has been verified ... before leaving open loop guidance
Controls design has been verified .... before every flying through max q
Environments have been verified .... Sure hope the liftoff environments are the max
Navigation has been verified .... over 5000 feet and 500 feet in longitude and latitude
Launch procedures have been .... opps wait, we will fix it next time
Got the picture.
Elon still has to get through max q, cleanly separate, ignite stage 2, potentially perform a restart, exercise orbital guidance, perform a CCAM, and successfully separate the spacecraft. He had static fired before launching. The last launch he did the same thing, except he let it leave the pad.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I had a similar reaction to that ad in Space News, as did pretty much everyone I know with flight hardware experience.

Nate_Trost · « **Reply #18 on:** 07/18/2006 07:43 pm »

edit: whoops, wrong button.

shuttle_buff · « **Reply #19 on:** 07/18/2006 07:55 pm »

Speaking of buttons....

The article in Aviation Week after the Falcon 1 first attempt was really good. Elon's operation is totally manual. He said he can't afford the automation in his processes yet. He was complaining that all he wants to do is press a button and the count starts and a few hours later the rocket launches. Sounds like a typical programmer to me.

Remember, he's funding everything himself. He stated that after the third failed attempt he probably will quit.

shuttle_buff