ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



SpaceX hits a snag

Posted: Friday, January 19, 2007 5:56 PM by Alan Boyle

Elon Musk - the millionaire founder of Space Exploration Technologies, better known as SpaceX - often says there's a reason why rocket science is a stereotypically hard thing to do. Further proof of that came today, when Musk announced that the long-anticipated second launch of his Falcon 1 rocket would have to be delayed until next month due to a problem with the craft's control system.

This Falcon 1 mission is purely a demonstration launch, to show the Pentagon that SpaceX's rockets are ready to put military communication satellites into orbit under the terms of a $100 million contract. If Musk is successful, the Falcon system could open the way toward increased competition in the launch industry and help bring down the cost of access to space.

SpaceX had hoped to conduct a static-fire engine test today on the rocket's launch pad at Kwajalein Atoll (a.k.a. Kwaj), which is more often used for the Pentagon's missile defense tests. The static-fire test is usually part of the final buildup toward launch. But Musk is being extra-careful about this launch - particularly because the Falcon 1's maiden mission failed in November 2005 due to a fuel leak caused by an overlooked corroded nut.

It's taken more than a year to work toward this second launch, and now it will take a little while longer. Here's what Musk had to say on SpaceX's Web site:

"During our final check-outs prior to static fire, we uncovered an anomaly with the thrust vector control (TVC) pitch actuator on the second stage that will result in launch being pushed to February. Since this is not used during the static fire, we have decided to push forward with that test in order to acquire valuable data on engine ignition, pad acoustics, and the overall system response. The static fire is now planned to occur between Saturday and Tuesday. This test will proceed very slowly and then only burns for about four seconds, so will not be webcast to avoid boring people silly. We will post a video afterwards.

"Upon completion of the static fire, we will take the rocket back into the hangar to thoroughly investigate the TVC issue.  With the range available to us only until January 23 (Kwaj needs to reconfigure for an incoming Minuteman mission), this means launch is now planned for mid-February.  As I’ve mentioned previously, don’t hold your breath for this launch. Given the large number of robustness improvements and the fact that our vehicle/pad health verification system has increased from about 30 checks to almost 1,000, shifts in the launch date are to be expected. Overall, the SpaceX team is quite happy with the smooth progress so far."

Private space consultant Charles Lurio said in an e-mail that the delay to mid-February was no surprise:

"While I hope the static firing goes well, my reaction to the ‘launch delay’ is that it really isn’t one. The most likely scenario was always that the earliest launch attempt would come later. Yawn."

To find out how the static-fire test turns out, keep checking the SpaceX update page over the weekend - and look in on the "Kwajalein Atoll and Rockets" Weblog, a totally unofficial site maintained by Kimbal Musk, Elon's brother.

Update for 9:20 p.m. ET Jan. 24: SpaceX says the static-fire test was not conducted after all. More information should become available on Jan. 25. Stay tuned...

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

One wonders, based on the so-called missle defense system" test results, if there might be a previously unknown gremlin colony on Kwaj.  Mayhaps a missle viral infection?

Maybe SpaceX ought to relocate to another launch point.  
Alan,

I've published an article about an Empirical Law of Private Space Industry:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/018empLaw.html

Gaetano
Charles Lurio has been paying attention. Before the first launch, there was delay after delay, and with each one some rediculous excuse that made it clear to anyone with any sense that they had never been anywhere close to ready. I don't believe a thing that Musk says any more. "...to avoid boring people silly"? Please. Don't patronize us, Elon. You don't want anyone to see something go wrong. Again.
I think SpaceX is beginning to discover why other companies in the launch industry like Boeing & Lockheed Martin charge so much for their rockets. It's hard to do this on the cheap.
if I can give a suggestion to SpaceX... "don't try to do (now) one-two "PERFECT" launches of a your EXPERIMENTAL rocket, but (since you have sufficient funds) build and launch FIVE+ Falcons (WITHOUT payloads) within one-two years (max) and ONLY to gain experience, gather useful flight data and discover ALL (unknown) rockets/engines problems, NO MATTER if some of them will fail" (...the "right way" to Space has NO "shortcuts"...)
I think it's time for Alan to provide a little box with links to the active private space companies/efforts.

Out there by the box of links to other sites, add one that has, say

SpaceX (link to main page) news (link latest news)

Kistler (main page) news (news page

Rutan (main page) news (news)
etc.

Doing so would not prevent the writing of an article about one. It would provide a way to keep people on those pages. It would also provide a centralized location for us to reach them through so we can aply for jobs or seats.

Since you need to keep up on this anyway, why not collect it in a way that we can use it to get involved?
The only way "competition" will lower the cost of spaceflight is by the competitors reducing their costs, i.e cutting corners on materials and testing, and not paying enough to hire and retain the best employees.
Well I'm sure they have cold feet considering what happened last time. I'm not ready to naysay their efforts just yet. If this upcoming launch, whenever it comes, results in a catastrophic failure, then perhaps I'll voice discontent. Until then, let them do what they have to do.
Well, at least they're discovering this the right way, instead of how NACA (NASA's predecessor) did it during the Explorer program in the 50s. One impressive fireball after another and another and another.
 Mr Musk: 

 The fastest way to cut your problems is to hire people that have already been thru the learning curve. It is far less expensive than going thru the learning curve yourself. 

 The power, refinery, chemical, engineering, and construction industry learned this rule many years ago, and NASA would have done the samething if people would have been avalable during the 50's. 

 Go out in the industry and buy some experience...it is less expensive. 

 I am a power, refinery, construction,engineering, water and waste water, commissioning and start up field engineer, with thirty years experience and go all over the world on assignments because of my knowledge and experience, which you can hire right now and not have to wait thirty years to acquire. 

  Thank You 
  Harrol Pearson 
  Home:   USA 1 918 [xxx-xxxx]
  hdpearson @ hotmail . com
Well, SpaceX is clearly on a learning curve, and I guess it's inevitable that they will get a few "I told you so" comments. But I think people misunderstand what Musk has tried to do. First of all, he has hired experienced people from the industry, notwithstanding Harrol Pearson's comments. He is not building flying saucers or bottle rockets or hiring kooky space cadets. He is simply trying to build conventional launch vehicles cheaper than the other guys. His innovations, as it were, are mostly non-technical:

1. Run a rocket company like an Internet startup. Hire a small, dedicated team of the very best people available and empower them to call the shots in their area of expertise.

2. Fully leverage modern technology (especially computers) by doing a clean sheet design of the whole system.

3. Keep a laser-like focus on lowering costs, primarily by going with the simplest designs feasible, using common components, maximizing automation, and being willing to give up some performance in the process.

Will he succeed? I don't know. I hope so. Success in my judgment would be defined as a profitable company that is selling launch vehicles cheaper than those companies already in the market.
It is clear that Mr. Pearson hasn't done enough homework on Spacex. He should stick to engineering things that have been thoroughly studied and reproduced hundreds of times over and leave the rocket building to the experts.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=37123

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google