Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

SpaceNut · 2005-11-30 07:13:10

Here is a little more on what is making the next chance for flight: SpaceX Rocket Won’t Debut Before Dec. 17

SpaceX would have had sufficient liquid-oxygen supplies on hand at Kwajalein to recover from the tanking mistake if the company’s on-site liquid-oxygen plant had not broken down three weeks prior to the launch attempt.
SpaceX decided to ship the needed liquid oxygen in from Hawaii rather than wait for the equipment to be repaired.
But the tanks used to ship the liquid oxygen to Kwajalein were so poorly insulated, Musk said, that by the time the delivery arrived, about 80 percent of SpaceX’s order had boiled off.
Musk said he has no choice but to use the same supplier, but this time he is sending two of SpaceX’s own well-insulated tanks back to Hawaii to be filled and shipped back out to Kwajalein.

publiusr · 2005-12-02 12:30:47

Doesn't surprise me in the least.

John Creighton · 2005-12-02 13:52:08

If dellays continue to persist won't this add to the operating cost and decrease the effectiveness of the rocket?

SpaceNut · 2005-12-02 14:15:36

Ya either all at once or spread out across several of them is how I think all of us are seeing this. We are also seeing the imprtance of infrastucture as well out of being forced to change launch sites.

MikkelR · 2005-12-08 08:01:20

9 days till next launch window opens, lets hope they get it flying this time

MikkelR · 2005-12-09 18:01:27

http://www.spacex.com/launch_info.php

The new launch date is approximately December 20, depending on when the Missile Defense Agency testing is complete. As soon as we have a firm time, it will be posted here.

MikkelR · 2005-12-12 13:38:34

New launch window.

Next launch attempt will be 19. dec US time.

Source: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon/f1 … pdate.html

Anyone knows if Elon has secured some proper media coverage this time?

MikkelR · 2005-12-16 09:05:36

Official announcement, launch window remains 19. dec.

Falcon 1 Maiden Flight Update: Posted December 15, 2005
The SpaceX launch date is scheduled for Monday, December 19 at 11 a.m. PST.

http://spacex.com/launch_info.php

SpaceNut · 2005-12-19 08:32:17

[url=http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/051217/x.shtml]SpaceX plans Monday launch
Takeoff couldn't come during a worse time for Boeing[/url]

So why should this be..

Difference in price
Of greatest concern to Boeing, SpaceX's Falcon 1's price tag is $6.7 million. It has less lift capacity than Boeing's Delta 2, but competes directly with Orbital Sciences' Pegasus rocket, which costs about $30 million. A successful launch, though, could accelerate production of the Falcon 5, which competes directly with Boeing's Delta 2. Boeing's Decatur-made Delta 2 costs about $60 million per launch.
The Falcon 5, SpaceX says, will cost about $12 million.

But beyound that Space-x did file a law suit to stop the merger of lockheed and boeings operations. The Boeing is having its problems with the strike that is on going.

MikkelR · 2005-12-19 11:29:08

Follow the links for live update on the launch progress

Spaceflightnows coverage of the launch
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon/f1/status.html
Elons brother liveblogging the event
http://kwajrockets.blogspot.com/
Nasaspaceflight coverage from the media room(?)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … 1&posts=32
I hope it is okay im linking to other sites, if not, i apologize

MikkelR · 2005-12-19 13:13:58

There seems to be some confusing miscommunication, spaceX will update the status of the launch in approx ~ 5min.

MikkelR · 2005-12-19 13:33:36

The launch has been scrubbed due to some structural problems of the first stage. The next launch attempt will be in January at the earliest.

Rxke · 2005-12-19 14:29:12

Arg.

The topic title is becoming ... Painful.

Launcher of the future. Always of the future, never now....

SpaceNut · 2005-12-19 15:33:22

Since this was the same ship that was on the pad and it had been filled before I am wondering if the problem is related to the foam problem of the shuttles ET in that cryrogenic fuel loading an unloading has caused a problem to occur...

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-19 16:17:59

"structural problems of the first stage"

SpaceX is finished

Grypd · 2005-12-19 16:29:30

"structural problems of the first stage"
SpaceX is finished

A bit strong that. Space X is only in trouble if there launch fails and they have not launched and since NASA, ESA, JAXA all have shown major failures in there launchers over the years I think that Space X is just showing how hard the space launching industry is.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-19 18:54:27

No, I don't think so...

The whole SpaceX business model revolves around the concept that their super-simple rockets are cheaper than Boeing/Orbitals. A big reason for that is the simplified construction, much of which is based on simple aluminum tank construction. If SpaceX's claim-to-fame, their really cheap fuel tanks, can't even hold up to a cyclic soak in LOX, then that is a strong hint that their entire rocket is too amatureish to trust.

John Creighton · 2005-12-19 20:05:22

No, I don't think so...
The whole SpaceX business model revolves around the concept that their super-simple rockets are cheaper than Boeing/Orbitals. A big reason for that is the simplified construction, much of which is based on simple aluminum tank construction. If SpaceX's claim-to-fame, their really cheap fuel tanks, can't even hold up to a cyclic soak in LOX, then that is a strong hint that their entire rocket is too amatureish to trust.

It doesn’t look good. (Cross fingers and hopes for the best)

John Creighton · 2005-12-19 20:23:58

How long will it be now before Jeffery Bell writes an article about the doom of alt space.

BWhite · 2005-12-19 22:25:14

An assertion made in a comment (Dave G) at Rand Simberg's blog. Is the comment true?

I dunno. For what its worth:

Read the articles. Tank failure due to inadvertant excessive vacuum caused by a failed vent valve (failed closed) during de-fueling. Sucked it in like a soda can, which has no structural strength in that direction (nor is it designed to).
Sounds to me like a failure of the design team to identify this as a potential hazard, and provide a rupture point that protects the entire tank from this scenario. Either that, or at least have redundant valves (probably not due to weight), or a better unloading procedure (not that you can take the human out of the equation).
Tough way to learn a lesson. Cryin' shame, we're all rooting for them. But, bets are that the tank is scrap, and maybe the whole vehicle.

Edit to add: Here is a link to MSNBC fairly authoritative it would seem.

The article quote Musk from his SpaceX site. Such prompt candor should be applauded:

"Due to high winds, we placed the countdown on hold and began draining the fuel tank. As we drained fuel from the first-stage tank, a faulty pressurization valve caused a vacuum condition in the tank. This caused a fuel tank barrel section to deform and suck slightly inward. It is important to note that the root cause is an electrical fault with a valve, not structural design. At this point, it appears that no other damage was sustained to the vehicle or the satellite."

SpaceNut · 2005-12-20 05:59:54

Last time they were ready to launch there reason for scrubbed was because a vent valve on the lox tank was left open, is what I recalled defining it as a lox leak.
Now other valves are to blame for tank deforming...

Grypd · 2005-12-20 10:29:31

Sounds like they need a plumber rather than a rocket scientist

The one advantage that Elon Musk gets from this failure is that he was very open about what has occured this compared to other rocket makers and launchers. And fundamentally it is still a teething problem and something that can be rectified without too much expense.

Space X is only finished when it does not have the cash to continue and I suspect that this is not a problem at the moment. It has gained a lot of knowledge from this and the need for cheaper launchers is still there.

Rxke · 2005-12-20 10:42:49

Somewhere, sometime, not too long ago, Musk commented the whole undertaking has cost him more money than anticipated...

Now, in a worst case scenario, that could mean he no longer has the financial margin for 2 or three failing launches before success...
Must be quite stressful and wasteful period now, constant-relocation of hardware, paperwork etc... Maybe little or no time left to take a step back and have a hard look at the design/operations...
Now, they had 2, 3 dress-rehearsals, and already learned a lot re: optimisation of operations, which can be a good thing if their launch succeeds, heck, even f the first is a firecracker, they could do another... using new optimized operations...
All is not lost, ATM, but his self-imposed deadlines must be a real killer....
Instead of a januari launch, maybe scrub for three months, and do a good review of operations, or even wait longer, to make sure weatherconditions are closer to optimal?

All depending on how deep his pockets are...

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-20 14:11:08

If the tank can be repressurized, it might be salvaged, but...

1: Elon can't afford to be seat-of-the-pants, or else customers will bail. "Launch it anyway" is a great way to prove you don't have what it takes.

2: Elon may not be able to afford to avoid a seat-of-pants launch to prove the thing flies before customers will bail on him.

Not a good combination

SpaceNut · 2005-12-21 09:17:56

The secret to those cheapy tanks...

The Falcon 1 design uses a pressure-stabilized structure for reduced weight, inspired by the original Atlas rocket. The Atlas designers achieved significant weight reduction by using a thin metal skin that required the vehicle to be continuously pressurized to prevent collapse. This practice was discontinued with the current Atlas V launcher.
The Falcon 1 uses a relaxed version of this approach. The vehicle structure allows the rocket to be transported and handled unpressurized. Pressurization is required for rigidity during flight, however.

So why did the tank have a problem when it has been tested:

During a press event to cover the launch attempt, Shotwell said that the first stage at Omelek had passed standard proof-pressure testing, and that a qualification prototype had successfully undergone about 200 fill-unload pressure cycles. She said that both stages of the first flight vehicle are made from common Al 2219 aluminum alloy, although the company expects to eventually move to an advanced lithium aluminum alloy for its upper stage. Although advanced friction stir welding is likely to be employed in future production, Shotwell said conventional welding techniques were used for the current vehicle.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2005-11-30 07:13:10

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#152 2005-12-02 12:30:47

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#153 2005-12-02 13:52:08

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#154 2005-12-02 14:15:36

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#155 2005-12-08 08:01:20

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#156 2005-12-09 18:01:27

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#157 2005-12-12 13:38:34

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#158 2005-12-16 09:05:36

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#159 2005-12-19 08:32:17

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#160 2005-12-19 11:29:08

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#161 2005-12-19 13:13:58

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#162 2005-12-19 13:33:36

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#163 2005-12-19 14:29:12

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#164 2005-12-19 15:33:22

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#165 2005-12-19 16:17:59

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#166 2005-12-19 16:29:30

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#167 2005-12-19 18:54:27

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#168 2005-12-19 20:05:22

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#169 2005-12-19 20:23:58

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#170 2005-12-19 22:25:14

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#171 2005-12-20 05:59:54

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#172 2005-12-20 10:29:31

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#173 2005-12-20 10:42:49

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#174 2005-12-20 14:11:08

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

#175 2005-12-21 09:17:56

Re: Falcon 1 & Falcon 9

Board footer