Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Flight 4 Launch Postponed
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]."
If you're wondering, LOX is "Liquified Oxygen"
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.
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/
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?
The enemies of Democracy are
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 changed their procedures quite a bit.
Rust is burned steel.
Free Martian Whores!
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 under development by SpaceX... called the Dragon) that will carry seven astronauts, along with an unpressurized cargo area to haul some more goods with them.
While certainly not capable of launching what the Shuttle or even the Saturn V could do into space, it is rather respectable in its own right. The current launch manifest has the Falcon 9 launching sometime in the first half of next year... pending of course the success of this flight of the Falcon 1.
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. Some processes are drastically simplified (for example, the internal diagnostics are done on an internal TCP/IP network instead of dedicated analog lines typical of the Apollo-era rockets) and the fact that they aren't creating "make work" projects for congressional pork.
If the launch crews for the previous three launches of the Falcon 1 are any indication, it is only a dozen or so people at the actual launch site who are directly involved with getting the rocket into orbit. This is contrasted with the 10's of thousands of workers involved with processing and launching the Space Shuttle... just at KSC.
Furthermore, the launch recycling time from abort to re-starting the countdown is incredibly short. On both launch attempts #2 and #3, it was done in less than an hour. The typical industry standard in that situation is about a day to a week. This means that a minor technical issue can be dealt with, the rocket even "repaired", and not even have to give the launch team anything more than a lunch break before having to restart the launch sequence. This alone is an incredible cost savings that in turn reduces the price of flying this spacecraft.
I could go into other areas that SpaceX has pioneered spacecraft development cost reduction, but those are just icing on the cake. They certainly have made a big splash in the spaceflight industry.