Falcon 1 Launch Delayed Until 2006

An anonymous reader writes "Florida Today is reporting that SpaceX will have to wait until 2006 to launch their Falcon 1 rocket that was scheduled for today. Engineers called off the launch when they noticed structural problems with the first-stage tanks. From the article: 'The Falcon 1 was to be launched from the U.S. Army's Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site on Kawajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. Its payload: an $800,000 space research satellite that was built by cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy.'"

Comments

Oh boy

[QuantumG]

Things are not looking good for Elon Musk. Few more delays and people will start cancelling.

Re:Oh boy

[iamlucky13]

I think his customers probably understand the delays are willing to sympathise with him to a point. Look at his customer manifest on the spacex website if you're curious. For the most part, it's government launches, because DARPA is interested in opening up more launcher options, so they're willing to risk a few lower priority projects trying out a "new product". I'm sure if it weren't for SpaceX, the cadet's satellite would be piggybacked onto a larger satellite for a lot less money. The cubesat doesn't even come close to the Falcon's payload capacity. On the commercial side, the noteworthy customer is Bigelow with his prototype Spacehab modules. As an aerospace startup like Musk, he's probably facing a lot of challenges similar in scale, but I'll bet he views their similarities as making them great partners in their respective projects. If I remember right, he already switched his first launch from the Falcon V to another rocket due to the projected schedule, but is planning to get his second module launched on a Falcon IX.

More information

[woohoodonuts]

The linked article isn't very informative. More information can be found here and here. a brief history of the company can be found here and a brief readout of this particular rocket can be found here.

Re:What happened?

[njchick]

Please don't refer to SpaceX as "we" unless you work there. It's a private business, and it's not using tax money to build rockets. SpaceX needs to be cautious to avoid accidents, or they won't get contracts.

Speaking of past achievements, let's not forget what happened to the Apollo 1 crew. SpaceX cannot afford even a disaster without loss of life - there is no government behind them, only investors.

Damage From Faulty Valve Causing Vacuum in a Tank

[Somegeek]

An update on Spacex's website gives the apparent cause of the damage:

"Posted December 19, 2005 at 4:40 p.m. California time: Here is the apparent cause of structural damage (further analysis may change the conclusion):

Due to high winds, we placed the countdown on hold and began draining the fuel tank. As we drained fuel from the 1st stage tank, a faulty pressurization valve caused a vacuum condition in the tank. This caused a fuel tank barrel section to deform and suck 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. The rocket will be lowered down this afternoon and placed in its hangar for further inspection. --- Elon ---"

Re:Disappointed

[FleaPlus]

It's a little disconcerting that a "structural" problem would be found only 15 minutes before the launch. The only thing I can think of off hand that makes sense is something related to fueling the rocket.

Actually, the problem was in draining the rocket. From the official update page:

Due to high winds, we placed the countdown on hold and began draining the fuel tank. As we drained fuel from the 1st stage tank, a faulty pressurization valve caused a vacuum condition in the tank. This caused a fuel tank barrel section to deform and suck inward. It is important to note that the root cause is an electrical fault with a valve, not structural design.