Slashdot Mirror
After Weeks of Delay, SpaceX Falcon Launches Communications Satellite Payload
After several weeks of delay, SpaceX has successfully launched from Cape Canaveral AsiaSat's communications satellite, AsiaSat 6. This launch was originally intended to occur on August 27. However, due to a failure of an experimental SpaceX rocket during a test flight, the launch was delayed. The experimental rocket apparently malfunctioned because of a sensor error. The company stated that the same error wasn’t likely to occur in its regular Falcon 9 rocket, but wanted to "triple-check" its systems to be certain.
SpaceFlightInsider has a play-by-play on the launch process and more details on the communications satellites aboard. They note:
[This] marked the fifth flight of the Falcon 9 in 2014. Since the company began using the booster, it had only been able to carry out about two launches annually of the rocket – until now. With the United States Air Force considering the rocket for use under the lucrative Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program and NASA already utilizing it to deliver cargo (and potentially crew) to the International Space Station, the rocket has become a popular player in terms of launch services. The next mission that SpaceX should use the propulsive descent landing system on, is the launch of one of the firm’s Dragon spacecraft carrying out NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services 4 (SpX-4) mission – currently scheduled to take place on Sept. 19.
bmajik launches a first post.
According to the mission profile, due to moderation, his positive karma will burn up during re-entry.
More seriously, I'm glad Space X is apparently doing things right. More successful launches... not just more launch attempts. The eyes are on them and lots of vested interests are looking to pounce and capitalize once they make a serious mistake.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Pushing the limits till they find them during testing, ensuring that their commercial vehicles don't suffer from any of the bugs discovered & then launching flawlessly.
You guys inspire me.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Maybe my math is off, but in my book 11 days does not make "weeks". Attention-grabbing headline?
Triple-check
Really? We know SpaceX is a bunch of rocket scientists, it is rocket science.... verify sounds like a more calming/assuring word.
Next thing you know they'll be saying, the rocket's done done.
You also say 0.1 pounds. Not more than one. Also plural. For most people "After Weeks of Delay" implies more than 2 weeks.
Several weeks of delay != 11 days. At best you can call it a couple of weeks, but that's still pushing the definition.of couple.
Go SpaceX, beat the bastards.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
Ariane 1 - second and fifth launches failed
Ariane 2 - only 6 launches, first failed
Ariane 3 - fifth launch failed
Ariane 4 - eighth launch failed
Ariane 5 - first launch failed, two partial failures in first 11
Atlas A - only 8 launches, 5 failed
Atlas B - only 10 launches, 3 failed
Atlas C - only 6 launches, 2 failed
Delta - first launch failed
Delta II - first twelve successful, partial failure on the 42nd launch which substantially reduced the satellites operational lifespan (55th was first total failure)
Falcon 1 - only five launches, first three failed
Falcon 9 - first twelve launches successful, although a secondary payload on the fourth launch was aborted as a precaution
Long March 1 - only 2 launches, both successful
Long March 2 - first launch failed
Long March 3 - no complete failures in first 11, but 1 and 8 were partial failures
N-1 - only four launches, all failed horribly
Proton - third launch failed
Proton-K - second, third, fourth and sixth launches failed
Proton-M - eleventh launch failed
Saturn I - only ten launches, all successful
Saturn IB - only nine launches, all successful (unless you count Apollo 1 - it didn't launch but still killed three astronauts)
Saturn V - second launch (Apollo 6) failed, Apollo 13 doesn't count because it was a payload, not launcher, failure
Soyuz - third launch failed, with fatalities
Soyuz-U - seventh launch failed
Soyuz-FG - first twelve launches successful (all 46 to date completely successful, including lots and lots of astronauts delivered to ISS)
Space Shuttle - first twelve successful (19th was first partial failure (ATO), 25th was first full failure)
Titan I - fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth and tenth launches failed
Titan II - ninth and eleventh launches failed
Titan III - first and sixth launches failed
Titan IV - seventh launch failed
Zenit-2 - first and second launches failed
Falcon 9 will remain one of four until it beats (or fails to beat) Shuttle's record, probably sometime in 2016. Then it's likely to take many years to beat Delta II (which had a three decade head start). It may only beat Soyuz-FG if the Russians foul up, since they're still being launched quite regularly.
it's a further reminder that NONE of the vendors of small- or medium-sized rockets have EVER demonstarted a capability of a high flight that would be required for manned exploration missions which the advocates of using such small rockets for exploration always insist is an alternative to giant rockets. To Replace the SLS NASA is building (or the super-heavy Musk os talking about building) with EELVs or Falcon9s etc would require launching half a dozen within days of eachother and bringing all the lofted cargo together in LEO before sending it on to Mars or elsewhere. Nobody, not even the "big boys" in the industry have ever proven they can do this; every single rocket launch carries a high risk of launch delays that can stretch for weeks or even months.
well congratulations on another successful launch. ... hopefully about the slow internet they are getting.
too bad it was just another run of the mill brain washing television transponder that you have to legally pay for even though the signal originates from outerspace.
at least it also has some wifi AP glued to the can so people cinsidered not worth pulling fibre to can also send some email
would stop posting nonsense.
- sendcirly yours
"the junta"
Please remember that a launch vehicle is a separate thing from the payload.
The American moon program used Saturn launch vehicles to launch Apollo spacecraft, the Gemini program used Gemini spacecraft launched on Titan II launch vehicles, and so-on. As such, the Apollo 1 fire was a spacecraft failure but had nothing to do with the launch vehicle. The space shuttle is unique in violating this rule; the spacecraft carried the engines and computers of the launch vehicle (an experiment in re-usability intended to bring them home to theoretically reduce costs, but at the penalty of requiring the orbiter to be on the side of the stack rather than on top where payloads (including spacecraft) normally go).
I'd also quibble with your Apollo6 assessment of "failed"; the mission failed to go as planned, but the launch vehicle did indeed place its payload into orbit, thus demonstrating some of the redundancy of the vehicle (on what was, after all, a test flight rather than an operational flight) and the overall mission ended up getting all the necessary test results. If the launch vehicle had truly failed the mission would have been lost. I'd score it as a troubled flight on-par with the Falcon that dumped its secondary payload - it was hardly an N-1 style failure.
I wonder if they have a limited size 'A' team that is carefully going over everything to make sure it is safe to launch.
That is the way the Germans did it in the 60's at the cape.
A non-alternative is to have blind procedures which won't catch something new that seems wrong.
If so, they may need to gradually grow this group to be able to launch good, quick(er) and cheap.