Falcon 1 flight delayed

Trouble with the booster; flight kicked back "at least six weeks":
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/N...cle/index_html
Nothing about what the problem is on the SpaceX website yet.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
Trouble with the booster; flight kicked back "at least six weeks":
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/N...cle/index_html
Nothing about what the problem is on the SpaceX website yet.

It's there now.
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20090420

"Due to a potential compatibility issue between the RazakSAT spacecraft and
Falcon 1 launch vehicle..."

In engineering terms, this is an integration problem, not necessarily a
problem with either Falcon 1 or its payload.

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

In sci.space.history Jeff Findley wrote:
It's there now.
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20090420

"Due to a potential compatibility issue between the RazakSAT
spacecraft and Falcon 1 launch vehicle..."

In engineering terms, this is an integration problem, not
necessarily a problem with either Falcon 1 or its payload.

My peanut gallery sense is tingling and suggests someone had an "oh
frak" moment. Another epsilon of overhead will now be added to "the
process."

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Due to a potential compatibility issue between the RazakSAT spacecraft and
Falcon 1 launch vehicle..."

In engineering terms, this is an integration problem, not necessarily a
problem with either Falcon 1 or its payload.


Cut to SpaceX satellite integration team staring down at the eight
mounting bolts around the mounting plate atop the booster, and the seven
mounting holes around the base of the satellite... ;-)

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:


Jeff Findley wrote:
"Due to a potential compatibility issue between the RazakSAT
spacecraft and Falcon 1 launch vehicle..."

In engineering terms, this is an integration problem, not necessarily
a problem with either Falcon 1 or its payload.


Cut to SpaceX satellite integration team staring down at the eight
mounting bolts around the mounting plate atop the booster, and the seven
mounting holes around the base of the satellite... ;-)


Metric - English ... no-wait-a-minute, that was NASA. Doh!

"OM" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:03:11 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

"Due to a potential compatibility issue between the RazakSAT spacecraft
and
Falcon 1 launch vehicle..."

"Whaddyamean they sent it over with 3-prong plugs? We specifically
told them the outlets are *2*-prong ones!"

Or it is something really nasty like a vibration problem. System dynamics
is tricky stuff.

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

In sci.space.history message ,
Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:32:27, Jeff Findley
posted:

"OM" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:03:11 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

"Due to a potential compatibility issue between the RazakSAT spacecraft
and
Falcon 1 launch vehicle..."

"Whaddyamean they sent it over with 3-prong plugs? We specifically
told them the outlets are *2*-prong ones!"

Or it is something really nasty like a vibration problem. System dynamics
is tricky stuff.

SpaceFlight Now said "News stories published Friday in Malaysia said the
launch had been postponed because of "detected vibration at unsafe level
on the launch vehicle.", and in saying that SFN are undoubtedly correct
: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp...tion/3723070&s
ec=nation.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

In sci.space.policy Pat Flannery wrote:
Trouble with the booster; flight kicked back "at least six weeks":
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/N...cle/index_html
Nothing about what the problem is on the SpaceX website yet.

Within the last couple of days, SpaceX sent-out an email on that and
have a copy on their website:

http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20090601

They are still vague in describing the problem, but rather more
explicit in what they did to correct it, which I suppose in an
indirect way is saying what was wrong.

The launch was delayed last month after SpaceX identified the
potential for an unfavorable interaction between the satellite and
the launch vehicle. After further analysis, SpaceX determined the
implementation of a simple vibration isolation system would
address this concern. SpaceX selected the SoftRide isolation
system from CSA Engineering for this purpose, citing the system's
strong flight heritage and established success in addressing
vibration concerns.

rick jones
--
web2.0 n, the dot.com reunion tour...
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...