-
#20
by
WHAP
on 16 Sep, 2013 18:29
-
And people don't engage in rampant speculation about SpaceX?
Not without being quickly chastised, as in the quote I referenced. I don't see kevin's post as suggesting a conspiracy (i.e., Elon and/or SpaceX
conspiring with another person or agency to deceive the public), yet that's how it was characterized.
Lots of people defend "heritage" launch systems, myself included.
Never said they didn't. Me, too. I'll even defend some of SpaceX actions. Very quietly
.
-
#21
by
kevin-rf
on 16 Sep, 2013 19:26
-
I'm having difficulty finding an instance of Elon having suggested such in the past. Can you cite any examples?
The whole FTS delays come to mind, when they knew in advance that an explosive FTS would be required before the first Falcon 9 flew. Elon heavily criticized the range by the delays caused by having to add it.
-
#22
by
Antares
on 16 Sep, 2013 22:54
-
+1 on the FTS. And it wasn't just the approach to FTS: it was also the final approval. SpaceX had a week for FAA review in its schedule even though that review had never before been done in less than 3. Also SpaceX blamed the Dragon software verification delays on NASA, as WHAP alludes in Reply #19, once SpaceX had delivered the data. SpaceX is fast paced and doesn't understand other people are only willing to work 8 hours a day (and OPM's Merit Systems Protections foster the mediocrity).
-
#23
by
kevin-rf
on 17 Sep, 2013 00:03
-
Antares, Thanks for jogging my memory on some of the others...
NSF, better than Ginkgo Root!
-
#24
by
beancounter
on 17 Sep, 2013 02:35
-
Who gives a rats! Imo the instances cited demonstrate inexperience, nothing much more. In their defence, they're continuing to develop their vehicles so i'll just sit here agonising over how the next flight will go. in the end, I just want to see SpaceX flying regularly.
-
#25
by
meekGee
on 17 Sep, 2013 03:08
-
For sure.
Since (as someone quoted above) SpaceX's stated mission is to develop reusability and not just be an expendable launch provider, the significance of these individual flights is relatively low, as long as they don't threaten the overall long-term health of the company.
There's a large manifest, the bulk of which will barely be affected by any hold-ups in the current schedule. So as far as that goes, SpaceX has done their job well, and can basically let things proceed at the best practical pace. They will suffer basically no long-term consequences if they were to announce a 2 week delay due to internal reasons. They are very much aware of this, and so I really doubt they're inventing reasons to blame others for any delays.
-
#26
by
ChrisWilson68
on 17 Sep, 2013 06:11
-
Yeah, and also consider that even as their wet dress rehearsals and hot fires got delayed, they only delayed the launch date by one day, to Sunday the 15th. They were even saying for a little while that they would try to do another hot fire Saturday, and still launch on Sunday. They had been slipping the launch date earlier, but suddenly they weren't willing to slip even a couple of days from Sunday. That's all completely consistent with them knowing that if they didn't launch by Sunday they'd have to wait for some time because of range issues.
-
#27
by
Jim
on 17 Sep, 2013 10:46
-
For sure.
Since (as someone quoted above) SpaceX's stated mission is to develop reusability and not just be an expendable launch provider, the significance of these individual flights is relatively low, as long as they don't threaten the overall long-term health of the company.
There's a large manifest, the bulk of which will barely be affected by any hold-ups in the current schedule. So as far as that goes, SpaceX has done their job well, and can basically let things proceed at the best practical pace. They will suffer basically no long-term consequences if they were to announce a 2 week delay due to internal reasons. They are very much aware of this, and so I really doubt they're inventing reasons to blame others for any delays.
Not one bit of that is true. Just a bunch of hand waving trying to justify a perception of the situation biased by the unconditional believe that spacex can do no wrong. No different than saying "ignore the man behind the curtain". Each flight puts the overall long-term health of the company on the line.
-
#28
by
meekGee
on 17 Sep, 2013 14:35
-
For sure.
Since (as someone quoted above) SpaceX's stated mission is to develop reusability and not just be an expendable launch provider, the significance of these individual flights is relatively low, as long as they don't threaten the overall long-term health of the company.
There's a large manifest, the bulk of which will barely be affected by any hold-ups in the current schedule. So as far as that goes, SpaceX has done their job well, and can basically let things proceed at the best practical pace. They will suffer basically no long-term consequences if they were to announce a 2 week delay due to internal reasons. They are very much aware of this, and so I really doubt they're inventing reasons to blame others for any delays.
Not one bit of that is true. Just a bunch of hand waving trying to justify a perception of the situation biased by the unconditional believe that spacex can do no wrong. No different than saying "ignore the man behind the curtain". Each flight puts the overall long-term health of the company on the line.
Actually Jim, launch companies suffered mission failures before, not to mention launch delays, and were just fine in the grand scheme of things. As people pointed out, F91.1 is not doing bad for its first launch. (You should still treat each launch as if the world's at stake of course, and as far as I can tell, they are)
Second, do I take it then that you believe SpaceX is inventing excuses to justify delays? Because that's the context of the conversation above, and if you want to take that line, then you have a lot of explaining to do - SpaceX did the hot fire (which implies they're ready), reported some anomalies and ran into the pre-scheduled test of the minuteman a few days later. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me - no need to invent a man behind the curtain.
I'm just glad they got the hot fire in, since they have this down time to take care of all the issues they found, not only of the things that were deemed critical to the launch.
Like I said, the last thing they should worry about is schedule delays. None of the 2015 flights (and the later 2014 flights) give one hoot whether this upcoming launch is delayed or not.
-
#29
by
veblen
on 17 Sep, 2013 16:32
-
For sure.
Since (as someone quoted above) SpaceX's stated mission is to develop reusability and not just be an expendable launch provider, the significance of these individual flights is relatively low, as long as they don't threaten the overall long-term health of the company.
There's a large manifest, the bulk of which will barely be affected by any hold-ups in the current schedule. So as far as that goes, SpaceX has done their job well, and can basically let things proceed at the best practical pace. They will suffer basically no long-term consequences if they were to announce a 2 week delay due to internal reasons. They are very much aware of this, and so I really doubt they're inventing reasons to blame others for any delays.
Not one bit of that is true. Just a bunch of hand waving trying to justify a perception of the situation biased by the unconditional believe that spacex can do no wrong. No different than saying "ignore the man behind the curtain". Each flight puts the overall long-term health of the company on the line.
Actually Jim, launch companies suffered mission failures before, not to mention launch delays, and were just fine in the grand scheme of things. As people pointed out, F91.1 is not doing bad for its first launch. (You should still treat each launch as if the world's at stake of course, and as far as I can tell, they are)
Second, do I take it then that you believe SpaceX is inventing excuses to justify delays? Because that's the context of the conversation above, and if you want to take that line, then you have a lot of explaining to do - SpaceX did the hot fire (which implies they're ready), reported some anomalies and ran into the pre-scheduled test of the minuteman a few days later. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me - no need to invent a man behind the curtain.
I'm just glad they got the hot fire in, since they have this down time to take care of all the issues they found, not only of the things that were deemed critical to the launch.
Like I said, the last thing they should worry about is schedule delays. None of the 2015 flights (and the later 2014 flights) give one hoot whether this upcoming launch is delayed or not.
How can a company like SpaceX, angling to get telcomm business/explore, not worry about schedule delays? A company that wants to involve itself bigtime with celestial mechanics has no choice.
Anyhoo, Go SpaceX Go! Go Cassiope! I wonder if the mods will erase this one too.
-
#30
by
Robotbeat
on 17 Sep, 2013 16:38
-
2 weeks, by itself, isn't a big deal. It's the overall launch rate that really matters, and that's something SpaceX has yet to prove.
-
#31
by
Karloss12
on 17 Sep, 2013 19:54
-
Schedule delays for the first "test" launch of a rocket can be forgiven. Even for a second launch a few months delay can be forgiven.
It is after these first couple of flights that the above debate is valid.
Everyone is just so frustrated!!! We all want to see this F9 Launch. Patience people. :-)
-
#32
by
koraldon
on 18 Sep, 2013 06:37
-
Considering that arianespace locked up most of the market for comsats in 2015, and even ULA got a contract, the delay do have an impact on spacex....
If casiopee would have flown on may as planned and by now two additional missions would have flow as well, as planned by spacex - they would have a chance for more missions in 2015....
Since they have delays, customers are signing up with other launchers...
-
#33
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 18 Sep, 2013 12:27
-
Dan Leone of SpaceNews wheedled a less un-specific answer out of SpaceX about the hot-fire anomalies:
... Following the hot-fire test, “we saw some anomalies stemming from how the pad interfaces with the vehicle,” SpaceX spokeswoman Emily Shanklin wrote in a Sept. 16 email. “These are the kinds of things you can only find out when you static fire” ...
From this article: http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/37251pad-interface-anomalies-range-conflicts-push-falcon-9-11-launch-to-late
Okay, that potentially narrows it down
a lot. "How the pad interfaces with the vehicle"; what could that mean?
As Jim has already pointed out that the stress levels on the hold-downs isn't monitored, this narrows it down to something like:
1) Propellent feeds;
2) Hard-line pad data interfaces;
3) Ground power lines;
4) Payload A/C hose.
Thinking back, they had a big pad fire on the first or second F-9 launch when the U/S prop line was damaged on release at launch. SpaceX will be understandably paranoid about making sure everything works well this time around.
-
#34
by
Jim
on 18 Sep, 2013 12:56
-
As Jim has already pointed out that the stress levels on the hold-downs isn't monitored, this narrows it down to something like:
1) Propellent feeds;
2) Hard-line pad data interfaces;
3) Ground power lines;
4) Payload A/C hose.
There are many other interfaces such as vehicle computers to ground computers. Vehicle propellant system sensors working with ground loading equipment. The "interfaces" are not just a hardware to hardware but how systems interact with each other.
An example (that might be only US based), going a gas station and filling up your car. The gas pump nozzle will fit in your gas tank fill tube but there may be some flow interaction that keeps tripping the overfill cut off. You have to adjust the flow rate or position in the nozzle in the fill tube to reduce the back pressure keep the flow going.
-
#35
by
Nate_Trost
on 18 Sep, 2013 14:15
-
Question I don't think I've seen raised yet: if SpaceX doesn't launch by the end of September, and the Federal government shuts down on Oct 1, does that affect the range and TDRSS support availability?
-
#36
by
Helodriver
on 18 Sep, 2013 16:04
-
-
#37
by
Jim
on 18 Sep, 2013 16:44
-
-
#38
by
Lurker Steve
on 18 Sep, 2013 16:58
-
-
#39
by
jedsmd
on 18 Sep, 2013 17:21
-
.