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.

Comments

After weeks of delay....

[bmajik]

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.

Hooray for Space-X

[phayes]

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.

Re:Hooray for Space-X

[Njorthbiatr]

SpaceX isn't even after money. Their objective is space.

They only want money because they don't want to run out of it.

Re:Hooray for Space-X

[dpilot]

The rigtht way to do capitalism, as opposed to the way it's generally practiced in the US, with the cart in front of the horse.

Re:Hooray for Space-X

[0123456]

The rigtht way to do capitalism, as opposed to the way it's generally practiced in the US, with the cart in front of the horse.

That's 'cause Musk isn't an MBA.

Some days, I honestly think the MBA must have been a Soviet plot to destroy the West.

Re: Hooray for Space-X

[Redbehrend]

If only more billionaires would help humanity instead of sit on their money and have passing contests lol.
The fact that if he keeps it up he might beat them all while bringing humanity and space closer is just a plus. Do they really think they will out live their billions?

Re: Hooray for Space-X

[Redbehrend]

Pissing** haha I really dislike sd beta, auto correct always sneaks one in while I'm trying to get my comments to just submit

Re:Hooray for Space-X

[catchblue22]

Some days, I honestly think the MBA must have been a Soviet plot to destroy the West.

Amen. I have been thinking something like that for years. MBA programs are like pernicious cults. So many failures and yet MBA's just keep on hiring clones of themselves.

The idea that a company can be run by someone who knows nothing about what the company does is a prime example of MBA delusion. I know of a food manufacturing plant who hired an MBA whose previous experience was in running a train assembly plant. All he could do was to sit upstairs and stair at graphs. Meanwhile the plant function decayed and profitability disappeared. The person he replaced had started his career from the plant floor, and had run the plant profitably for many years. Bring in an MBA and within two years, the damage was done. He was fired.

The other obvious examples: Apple - started by Steve Jobs (not an MBA). Makes Schully (an MBA) CEO. Almost goes bankrupt. Rehires Steve Jobs and becomes one of the world's most successful companies.

Space X, Solar City, Tesla, Paypal started by Elon Musk (not an MBA). All four are remarkably successful and disruptive businesses.

The lesson: People who actually understand the nuts and bolts of the businesses they run make far better leaders than those who don't have a clue what their businesses do. Surprise, surprise.

Re:Hooray for Space-X

[dpilot]

I'm really surprised to find general agreement with my post. I hit the Submit button expect rather shortly to be "schooled" on my naive and stupid economic thoughts.

Re:Hooray for Space-X

[macpacheco]

SpaceX is after money. Its just not only after money !
Anyhow, 7 launches of F9R, and launch cadence of a launch per month demonstrated twice in a row... And the next launch should be this September too.
Critics of SpaceX are running out of criticisms !

Re:11 days is "weeks"?

[Ol Olsoc]

"Maybe my math is off, but in my book 11 days does not make "weeks""

A week is 7 days. 11 days is about 1.57 weeks

More than one is plural.

Considering that your 1.57 "weeks" is indeed "weeks".

It therefore follows that there delay of 11 days translates out to centuries - 0.00030117 centuries

It's also 3.01170019 × 10-5 millenia. What the hell is the holdup?

And the Boeing investor poster strikes again

[bruce_the_loon]

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.

Updating gman003's post

[Areyoukiddingme]

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.

Re:Updating gman003's post

[Granular]

Apollo 13 should count, but not for what most people know about.

The second stage center engine shut down early due to a thrust chamber sensor reading low pressure. While this did not impact the orbital insertion (the remaining 4 engines fired for an additional 4 minutes to make up for it), the sensor reading that shutdown the engine may have been in error, and is still not understood. However, if this shutdown had not occurred, the vehicle would likely have been lost in just moments after when the shutdown occurred. The center engine was experiencing severe pogo osculations, resulting in the engine flexing the thrust frame up and down by 3 inches, 16 times each second—this motion would have resulted in disintegration of the rocket in short order. The thrust chamber sensor should have been unaffected by the pogo, so that is unlikely to be the cause of the reading that led to the shutdown. So it is possible that while one failure during launch almost destroyed Apollo 13, a second failure actually (temporarily at least) saved the mission.

See this article for more information.

Re:stop build rockets like webapps

[khallow]

As long as webapps are designed like things are designed, built like things that are built, and operated like things that are operated, you'll have this reciprocal problem of things that are designed, built, and operated like webapps.