Falcon 9 Prepares For High Stakes Launch

happylunarnewyear writes "The first new rocket to be launched from the Cape since 2002 is assembled and upright on Launch Complex 40. Falcon 9 will undergo fueling testing and live firing tests before the launch occurs as soon as next month. The stakes couldn't be higher, either. The much politicized proposal for a change in direction for NASA, which includes scrapping the Constellation program in toto in favor of privatization and a new heavy lift vehicle, veritably rides on this rocket. If the launch goes well, the plan for increased reliance on privatized cargo missions and eventually privatized manned missions will soar with it. However if something goes wrong, those plans will come crashing to Earth along with Falcon 9. Given the stakes, this launch is one of the most important in recent history. From the article, 'President Obama's proposal to shift transport of US astronauts to the space station from government launchers to privatized ones could suffer politically if there's a high-profile problem with the first mission of the Falcon 9, by far the most talked-about newcomer vying for the opportunity.'" Reader FleaPlus contributes related news about NASA's proposed funding for scientific payloads on commercial space flights, which would be a huge boon to researchers.

I don't get it...

[geegel]

SpaceX along with Orbital got contracts for delivering cargo to the ISS way before Constellation got canceled and there are plenty of alternatives to send cargo to begin with (Arianne is the first to pop in my mind)

The real hurdle lies in developing human rated space transport beyond LEO which is with an order of magnitude more difficult. It's nice to see SpaceX launch their rocket, but other than that this is a storm in a teacup.

dilemma

[jbeaupre]

Given that most rocket systems have a catastrophic launch failure some time during their history, and given that engineers learn from those mistakes to make every subsequent one safer, Falcon has a dilemma. If they are going to suffer a launch failure, is it better to have one on this first launch or a later one? Engineering wise, you want to fail early so you can fix early. But politically and economically, it could be a disaster.

Just a thought.

How is this more private than before?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is Space X launching a Falcon 9 under a government contract (that previously included helping with development costs) any different than a Delta or Atlas rocket launch under a government contract?

Re:Falcon Punch

[Geoffrey.landis]

Sooo... the launch of this Falcon rocket is like a punch in the face to the old Constellation program ?

Not exactly; the Falcon-9 was actually being funded by the old program. The idea was to fund multiple developments, not just one-- the COTS (Space-X and Orbital) to develop new cargo launch vehicles to station, and the Ares to develop exploration vehicles.

Latin phrases don't make you sound smart

[fandingo]

The use of "in toto" is in toto-ly stupid. This is not a legal paper, so don't use Latin. "Completely" would have sufficed.

Re:dilemma

[Kjella]

The alleged dilemma would only arise if there was a decision that makes a failure more likely now and less likely later. In practice I expect they do their damndest to avoid it both now and later, but somewhere there'll be a flaw sooner or later. As for what is best, a baseline that works is clearly better. Yes shit can happen because of a bad tweak or poor QA or external damage but having a design you know it basically working is a helluva lot easier than one that is not.

Re:dilemma

[khallow]

Keep in mind that SpaceX can learn from launch successes too.

Re:I don't get it...

[geegel]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the math doesn't add up. SpaceX got awarded a 1.6 billion dollar contract for 12 flights to ISS, that's 133 million bucks per flight. Ariane 5 has a cost of roughly 120 million bucks for flight. Where is the cheaper part?

Re:dilemma

[BJ_Covert_Action]

For SpaceX I would wager that launch #2 is the best one for them to have a catastrophic failure on with the Falcon 9. If they can get this first launch to its target safely and successfully, then everyone will turn towards Orbital to watch their maiden launch in 2011. That will give SpaceX the breathing room it needs to blow something up, collect data, and rehash the design.

Then again, SpaceX really does have a team of badass, top of the line engineers. If any company can pull off a HLV launch record without some sort of catastrophic cluster, its these guys.

Re:So if I understand this...

[confused one]

Umm... It's an Air Force facility located adjacent to the NASA facility.

Re:dilemma

[element-o.p.]

Just to add an extra consideration: not all failures are catastrophic failures. My thought would be, "If it is going to fail, let it fail in a way that is not catastrophic and that lets us analyze the failure so that we can correct it in subsequent launches." This way, you validate the overall design, learn from your "failure" and still don't scare off potential investors or clients.

Re:False Hopes.

[DerekLyons]

I work in the rocket launch industry. I have supported launch operations. A launch slip occurs when a company says, "We want to launch on date XX/XX/XXXX," and then later they say, "There was a problem with that date, now we are going to launch on date, YY/YY/YYYY."

Something precisely nobody has debated.
 

SpaceX has not claimed the former. Never have they said, publicly, "We intend to launch in March of 2010." They have said, "NASA has granted us a launch window that exists between March 2010 and May 2010. We should launch sometime within that period."

Which means we won't know if they slip or not - no matter what they can claim to be on schedule and adhering to their plan. It doesn't mean they aren't slipping.
 

That's pretty Orwellian

To that I respond, with all do respect, "WTF?" You know, Orwellian isn't a word that you can just toss on anything you dislike because it has a negative connotation. It actually has a very specific meaning that, so far as I can tell, has absolutely no bearing on the discussions in this thread.

Actually, it has a broad range of meaning and connotations - to wit: "It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past".