Slashdot Log In
SpaceX Flight 4 Launch Postponed
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Sep 24, 2008 09:15 AM
from the better-safe-than-exploded dept.
from the better-safe-than-exploded dept.
Matt_dk noted that yesterday's launch plans for SpaceX have hit some turbulence. He says "SpaceX Flight 4 Launch has been postponed. The static fire took place on Saturday [20 Sep 2008, CA time], as expected, and no major issues came up. However, after a detailed analysis of data, we decided to replace a component in the 2nd stage engine LOX supply line. There is a good chance we would be ok flying as is, but we are being extremely cautious.
This adds a few extra days to the schedule, so the updated launch window estimate is now Sept 28th through Oct 1st [CA time]."
Related Stories
[+]
SpaceX's Fourth Launch Attempt RSN 71 comments
jcgam69 writes "SpaceX's Falcon 1 is on the pad in the South Pacific Kwajalein Atoll ready for its fourth launch attempt, according to a blog post over the weekend from SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. The countdown is scheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 23, between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m. PDT, though the launch window will extend through Thursday if need be."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
More Wasteful then NASA? (Score:5, Funny)
With such wastefulness as replacing good parts, is privatising the space industry really the answer? After all, I don't think even NASA replaces perfectly good parts.
Re:More Wasteful then NASA? (Score:5, Funny)
"I don't think even NASA replaces perfectly good parts."
Yeah, better to just wait until they explode. Then you KNOW they needed to be replaced.
Parent
Re: (Score:1)
Just fly the shuttle till they are all gone, then you know you got the most out of them.
Re:More Wasteful then NASA? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm assuming this is a joke, intended to get a few funny mod points here.
If this were serious, of course some occasional parts that are likely to be good but have a question of doubt that they may be bad are replaced. Heck, I do that when I'm repairing my automobile... for exactly the very same reason. If I'm digging into the timing belt and I know the water pump has 50,000 miles on it, I'll change it (the water pump) out even if it is presumably working just fine... just to give an example.
This is good maintenance practice, and how you keep things flying. It is also called rocket science here.
Parent
Re:More Wasteful then NASA? (Score:5, Funny)
So how many miles did this part have on it? I thought they hadn't actually gotten into space.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
To clarify, I thought this vehicle hadn't actually gotten into space.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If the general principle is still eluding you, just read "after a detailed analysis of data" in the summary as meaning the data is what provided the motivation for changing the part, assume that they neither want to spend money nor delay the launch for no reason, and leave it at that, okay?
Re: (Score:2)
Anything that's had LOX flowing through it has some "mileage" on it.
rj
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, a LOX fitting is a lot more like replacing a leaky fuel pump than a leaky water pump. LOX is liquid oxygen. Spray it on a drop of grease and it will explode.
Nothing burns without oxygen, in a pure oxygen environment nearly anything will burn. After the Apolli 1 tragedy [nasa.gov], NASA changed their procedures quite a bit.
Rust is burned steel.
Re: (Score:2)
If this were serious, of course some occasional parts that are likely to be good but have a question of doubt that they may be bad are replaced. Heck, I do that when I'm repairing my automobile... for exactly the very same reason.
And this is a rocket going into outer freaking space. It's not like your car will blow up if something goes wrong. Unlike your car, an orbital rocket will.
Okay, well... I'm assuming that you don't drive an early Ford Pinto.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me put it this way; if SpaceX gets to orbit successfully in Flight 98 it still will have spent 20 million dollars less than one Space Shuttle flight. ONE.
There's just no way private enterprise can compete with government when it comes to wasting money. We'd have to see private central banks emitting fiat money to have even a remote chance of seeing this kind of a dispute.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
A skateboard costs less than a full size truck too... So what? You get what you pay for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To describe your response as clueless is a grave insult to the existing legions of clueless people out there - as it implies their intelligence is even less that currently believed.
No matter how cheap small potatoes launchers get - they will never replace the Shuttle and its capabilities, any more than than skateboards and Yugos will replace F150s and semis. Even if larger launchers (like the Falcon 9) become cheap, you still lack many important capabilities.
Re: (Score:1)
Man, did you see the Falcon Heavy? I disagree with you on that. Can you tell me those other important capabilities that the SpaceX launchers lack?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, given that since they resolved the corrosion problems of the first flight, they haven't had one in-flight part failure, I don't think you can yet criticize them for quality control. Flights 2 and 3 failed due to engineering issues that didn't show up in simulations or ground testing, not defective parts.
FYI, developing a new launch system from scratch is an extremely high risk endeavour (our early rocket programs experienced the same thing). Imagine if software that you wrote could only be run for t
Re: (Score:2)
Um, you are aware that the space shuttle launches fifty times more payload that the Falcon-I does, right?
And that would be 98% more than it needs to for the kinds of missions Falcon-I is designed for. The problem with the shuttle is that all of those engines, payload bay, wings, plumbing and so forth have to go up whether you're launching a part of the space station, spy satellite or not. Suffice to say it's all pretty fragile and wonky, but in the land of the Cowboy, we don't mind recklessly sacrificing
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It will be interesting to see what is going to happen with the Falcon 9 program. The Falcon 1 is really just a test vehicle (although it is going into production with some paying customers) for the Falcon 9 program. That is when the real fun is going to come in.
The Merlin engine on the Falcon 9 is identical to the one on the Falcon 1.... only it will have more of them running at the same time. The payload capacity of the Falcon 9 is also going to be sufficient to be able to launch a manned capsule (also
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As far as the per-launch costs are concerned... Elon has publicly stated that the development costs aren't going to significantly impact the final production costs... and in fact claims that he is going to reduce the price per launch once they get a good handle on the market and have a more firm grasp of operational costs.
Where they save the money isn't really so much reducing the inspections necessary for flight, but rather reducing the size of the crew necessary to tend, build, and launch the vehicle. So
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, actually no, I was not aware of that. But the Falcon 1 is more like a proof of concept than a workhorse. Check out the 9 and Heavy models. How do they stack up price/performance-wise against the Shuttle?
If the shuttle carries more payload than the F9 Heavy will but costs more than it's increased capacity, it's still a better deal to go with the F9.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Live Webcast? (Score:4, Interesting)
Will this launch have a live webcast like flight 3? If so, does anyone have the details?
Re:Live Webcast? (Score:4, Informative)
Assuming that they need the video telemetry anyway, and that they have been making some rather public announcements about this launch... I would say it is quite likely.
If you don't want to miss the webcast, make sure you look at the "main page" of the SpaceX website... where they've had links to the webcast on each of the previous launches.
http://spacex.com/ [spacex.com]
Parent
LOX is liquid oxygen (Score:4, Informative)
If you're wondering, LOX is "Liquified Oxygen"
Re:LOX is liquid oxygen (Score:4, Funny)
It's salmon and cream cheese
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, it's just salmon. You put both lox and creamcheese on a bagel.
Re: (Score:2)
And how is cured salmon fillet not salmon? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Karma whore. :-P
Lemme see if I can get some too: In case you're wondering, SpaceX actually means Space Exploration Technologies Corp.
karma --don't care (Score:2)
I couldn't give a shit about karma[1] right now.
Goal here was to inform a reader unfamiliar with the term from within the thread so they would not have to go out of the conversation to search for what LOX means. It's just unobvious enough that I knew some might not know and it took me half a sec to author.
( I appreciate your " :-P " Marco. )
I also didn't want to return to the thread later today and find 30 posts asking what LOX was....
Have a super day!
[1] slashdot karma that is...
Re: (Score:1)
I hope you didn't get offended or anything, I really meant it like a joke.
And I just noticed, OMG, I really got modded up informative. *slaps forehead* :-)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
dupe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The world revolves around me. It began on the day I was born and will end on the day I die. So, naturally, everyone is vying for my attention.
Also, I have a very large penis.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to Xbox Live to call everyone who doesn't recognize my superior skills a "fag" or "nigger" in as annoying a voice as I can muster.
Re:Put it in the documentary after you suceed (Score:5, Informative)
In fairness to SpaceX.... they have been able to make it into space before. They did that on the previous two attempts. Their main problem was one of not being able to stay up there due to crazy problems with their second stage.
I hope that they finally have figured that one out... and the last issue (having the rocket crash into itself and destroy the 2nd stage nozzle as a result) is something they are kicking themselves over even now.
The rocket they have built is certainly more than capable of getting up to space and maintaining orbital velocities.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Yep -- Flight 2 would have been orbital if they had just installed a baffle *or* reduced the stage separation kick (they modified the design for both). Barring something completely unforseen, Flight 3 would have been orbital had they not upgraded the engine *or* had they been able to test in a vacuum (as far as I can tell, the Merlin is too big for even the largest vacuum chambers), *or* had their CFD simulations shown the residual thrust more accurately.
Unfortunately, while rocketry may sometimes look lik
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, while rocketry may sometimes look like hand grenades, "close" doesn't count. One error, even slight, can easily doom an entire mission.
Yeah, isn't it funny what a few decades of irony can do to a colloquialism like "Well it isn't rocket science", as if that has somehow become easy.