| Science Forum Index » Space Forum » Falcon 9 won't launch until February 2010... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Fritz Wuehler... |
 Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rick Jones... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Fritz Wuehler <fritz at (no spam) spamexpire-200910.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
[quote]http://spacenews.com/launch/requested-falcon-range-date-has-
conflict.html
Bunch of liars! They said it would fly THIS year!!
[/quote]
I do not seek to defend SpaceX, but if schedule changes alone make
entities liars, the entire space industry, through its entire history,
is nothing but liars.
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... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian Thorn... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:20:30 +0100, Fritz Wuehler
<fritz at (no spam) spamexpire-200910.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
[quote]http://spacenews.com/launch/requested-falcon-range-date-has-
conflict.html
Bunch of liars! They said it would fly THIS year!!
[/quote]
And 2008. And 2007.
Brian |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dave... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Falcon 1 was initially scheduled launch in early 2004. The first
ACTUAL launch wasn't until March 24, 2006. And the first SUCCESSFUL
launch didn't occur until it's 4th flight, which was Sept 28, 2008...
4+ years from SpaceX's original launch date estimate.
SpaceX is not immune to the schedule slips and cost overruns that
current critics of NASA constantly cite. If Falcon 9 heavy is chosen
over Ares 1 to launch crew, I imagine that schedule slips, technical
difficulties, and budget overruns will disillusion many current SpaceX
proponents, and we'd still be looking at a several year gap in US
manned space flights.
Dave
On Oct 30, 8:34 pm, Brian Thorn <bthor... at (no spam) suddenlink.net> wrote:
[quote]
And 2008. And 2007.
Brian[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jeff Findley... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Dave" <dave.harper at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:55686742-6a25-4f07-88c3-73fe2dcdc1df at (no spam) a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
[quote]Falcon 1 was initially scheduled launch in early 2004. The first
ACTUAL launch wasn't until March 24, 2006. And the first SUCCESSFUL
launch didn't occur until it's 4th flight, which was Sept 28, 2008...
4+ years from SpaceX's original launch date estimate.
SpaceX is not immune to the schedule slips and cost overruns that
current critics of NASA constantly cite. If Falcon 9 heavy is chosen
over Ares 1 to launch crew, I imagine that schedule slips, technical
difficulties, and budget overruns will disillusion many current SpaceX
proponents, and we'd still be looking at a several year gap in US
manned space flights.
[/quote]
Even so, SpaceX is having some success with its vehicles and even though
their schedules have slipped and there have been some budget overruns,
they're still doing a lot more with a lot less money than NASA typically
does. Their launch prices are still pretty low, which is a good thing for a
commercial launch provider.
Ares I-Y will be the first flight of hardware which is close to flight
hardware, and that's not scheduled until 2014. How many billions of dollars
will NASA have spent on this program just to get to that first flight?
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jeff Findley... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Pat Flannery" <flanner at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote in message
news:VZSdnevl5528nnLXnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d at (no spam) posted.northdakotatelephone...
[quote]Jeff Findley wrote:
Ares I-Y will be the first flight of hardware which is close to flight
hardware, and that's not scheduled until 2014.
They are now actually thinking of giving the Ares 1-Y a live second stage
with a J-2X engine on it:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/Engine103009.xml&headline=Real%20Upper-stage%20Ares%20I-Y%20Engine%20Mulled
This would of course be only used for a suborbital flight, as we can't
move forward in too big of steps, like was done in that crazy Saturn V
program. 
[/quote]
Or the crazy Shuttle program, where the first test flight tested all of the
components from ground to orbit and back.
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dave... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 10:32 am, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find... at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com>
wrote:
[quote]
Or the crazy Shuttle program, where the first test flight tested all of the
components from ground to orbit and back.
Jeff
[/quote]
The first shuttle launch SHOULD have been an unmanned test. Young was
quoted as saying that if he knew how badly the acoustics had loaded
the flight surfaces at lift-off, they would have ejected. (Now we have
the water sound suppression system) The flight computer also almost
lost control during re-entry. Knowing now how little we knew then,
it's hard to argue that a manned test flight of the shuttle was a good
idea. We got lucky.
The shuttle wasn't an unmanned flight test because of the technical
challenges associated with flying it remotely with so many unknowns in
1981.
Dave |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BradGuth... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 5:34 pm, Brian Thorn <bthor... at (no spam) suddenlink.net> wrote:
[quote]On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:20:30 +0100, Fritz Wuehler
fr... at (no spam) spamexpire-200910.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
http://spacenews.com/launch/requested-falcon-range-date-has-
conflict.html
Bunch of liars! They said it would fly THIS year!!
And 2008. And 2007.
Brian
[/quote]
Perhaps they're secretly managed by those Boeing composite wizards.
~ BG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BradGuth... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 7:22 pm, Dave <dave.har... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 10:32 am, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find... at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com
wrote:
Or the crazy Shuttle program, where the first test flight tested all of the
components from ground to orbit and back.
Jeff
The first shuttle launch SHOULD have been an unmanned test. Young was
quoted as saying that if he knew how badly the acoustics had loaded
the flight surfaces at lift-off, they would have ejected. (Now we have
the water sound suppression system) The flight computer also almost
lost control during re-entry. Knowing now how little we knew then,
it's hard to argue that a manned test flight of the shuttle was a good
idea. We got lucky.
The shuttle wasn't an unmanned flight test because of the technical
challenges associated with flying it remotely with so many unknowns in
1981.
Dave
[/quote]
But Russia flew theirs remotely.
~ BG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Greg D. Moore (Strider)... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Which computer issues?
The only issues I'm aware of on re-entry were probably mitigated only
because of Young and Crippen.
"Dave" <dave.harper at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b982dcb9-654c-49ec-8873-00b8700fbb60 at (no spam) j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 2, 10:32 am, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find... at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com>
wrote:
[quote]
Or the crazy Shuttle program, where the first test flight tested all of
the
components from ground to orbit and back.
Jeff
[/quote]
The first shuttle launch SHOULD have been an unmanned test. Young was
quoted as saying that if he knew how badly the acoustics had loaded
the flight surfaces at lift-off, they would have ejected. (Now we have
the water sound suppression system) The flight computer also almost
lost control during re-entry. Knowing now how little we knew then,
it's hard to argue that a manned test flight of the shuttle was a good
idea. We got lucky.
The shuttle wasn't an unmanned flight test because of the technical
challenges associated with flying it remotely with so many unknowns in
1981.
Dave |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jeff Findley... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_delet3th1s at (no spam) greenms.com> wrote in message
news:qaydnepAPPeitW3XnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d at (no spam) earthlink.com...
[quote]
Which computer issues?
The only issues I'm aware of on re-entry were probably mitigated only
because of Young and Crippen.
[/quote]
Here's a quote from a posting by Mary way back in February of 2000:
After the first S-turn on STS-1, the entire re-entry was hand-flown
through STS-4, at which point the FCS was rewritten (and the e-seats
removed). John Young took over the flying when the sideslip meter
pegged and stayed pegged for several seconds, meaning that the limit
had been exceeded. This happened because L_YJ was about half the size
predicted and the wrong sign and not even the extremely robust FCS
could deal with that much error. Cf Iliff & Shafer, "Extraction of
Stability and Control Derivatives From Orbiter Flight Data", NASA
TM-4500, June, 1993.
The paper mentioned above is here:
http://dtrs.dfrc.nasa.gov/archive/00001014/01/TM4500.pdf
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Greg D. Moore (Strider)... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Right, I understand that to be an issue with the initial modeling of the
aerodynamics in that range, not what I'd call "a computer problem". To me a
computer problem is more like what the initial scrub was.
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley at (no spam) ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:8bbc2$4af048af$927a2cda$12625 at (no spam) FUSE.NET...
[quote]
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_delet3th1s at (no spam) greenms.com> wrote in
message news:qaydnepAPPeitW3XnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d at (no spam) earthlink.com...
Which computer issues?
The only issues I'm aware of on re-entry were probably mitigated only
because of Young and Crippen.
Here's a quote from a posting by Mary way back in February of 2000:
After the first S-turn on STS-1, the entire re-entry was hand-flown
through STS-4, at which point the FCS was rewritten (and the e-seats
removed). John Young took over the flying when the sideslip meter
pegged and stayed pegged for several seconds, meaning that the limit
had been exceeded. This happened because L_YJ was about half the size
predicted and the wrong sign and not even the extremely robust FCS
could deal with that much error. Cf Iliff & Shafer, "Extraction of
Stability and Control Derivatives From Orbiter Flight Data", NASA
TM-4500, June, 1993.
The paper mentioned above is here:
http://dtrs.dfrc.nasa.gov/archive/00001014/01/TM4500.pdf
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Pat Flannery... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 3:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jeff Findley wrote:
[quote]
Or the crazy Shuttle program, where the first test flight tested all of the
components from ground to orbit and back.
[/quote]
Manned all-up testing is 100% crazy.
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
