Monday, May 03, 2010

SpaceX Slips To May 23 With Option To Launch Earlier

The first flight of the Falcon 9 rocket is slipping to May 23, but SpaceX is holding open an option to move the launch back up to mid-May if the vehicle is ready and an opportunity opens.

SpaceX had a ’placeholder’ launch date of May 11 on the schedule at the Air Force Eastern Range, which provides tracking and range safety services for all launches from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station or NASA’s Kennedy Space Center.

But a subcontractor still is striving to complete Air Force-required tests on parts of the rocket’s flight termination system.

SpaceX Founder Elon Musk said in an e-mail Monday that the company would not be able to select a definitive launch date until the components pass certification tests.

Complicating matters is a busy launch schedule.

SpaceX is eying May 16 or May 17 but NASA aims to launch shuttle Atlantis on May 14. A United Launch Alliance Delta IV rocket is slated to blast off May 20. SpaceX is working around those operations. It typically takes a least a day to turn the range around from the launch of one vehicle to another.

See the full story in tomorrow's newspaper editions of Florida Today.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Obama is going to be mad.....he likes that rocket.....well at least he likes their money.....

Anonymous said...

If Obama really likes that rocket .. maybe he will invest.. come on IPO

Anonymous said...

Someone tell me the reason that testing of a FTS is still being done? Everyone knows that range safety needs to approve launches. This just goes to show you that SpaceX doesn't know spaceflight and the details about going about it the right way.

Anonymous said...

If Obama is promoting creating jobs in the USA, why does this Obama sponsored rocket use Russian engines?

Anonymous said...

>>If Obama is promoting creating jobs in the USA, why does this Obama sponsored rocket use Russian engines?

Because what you say is untrue. It's the ULA Atlas (made by Lockheed) that uses Russian engines. SpaceX uses the first kerosine-LOX engines designed and built in the US since Apollo.

But Republicans will use any lie to attack Obama, while they cheered when Bush killed the Shuttle and eliminated their jobs, and eliminated all human spaceflight from the US for at least five years. To the Republicans it's not about space, it's about hate.

Anonymous said...

I don't know who complained about the origin of the SpaceX engines, but there is no evidence of his political affiliation. It's silly to dismiss the complaint as a "Republican lie." It's just a mistake.

I'm a Republican, and I don't know of any fellow party members who "cheered" when the shuttle was canceled. Most of us were disappointed, but understood the argument for doing so:
1. The shuttle design is more than 30 years old. It was actually canceled before its first flight by Jimmy "I will put America on the moon again!" Carter, but reinstated by Republican Ronald Reagan.
2. It has been more expensive to maintain than expected.
3. For someone used to fighter aircraft (non-combat) safety records, as President Bush was, the shuttle's loss rate per flight is appalling.
4. President Bush actually had a plan to put us on the moon again. The problem with it was that the US government's fiscal situation was already bad. His solution was to cancel the shuttle so the "savings" could be put into Orion, etc.

Now, explain to me how this is about "hate." Most of the hate I heard in the last ten years has been directed against G. W. Bush. I disagree with a lot that he did, but I believe he intended to do what would be best for the US space program in the long run.

Since Obama took office, the fiscal situation has gone from bad to dire. Obama has spent vast sums on other priorities, including socialist programs that will probably put us in the same economic class as Greece. He is so desperate for money that he might consider shutting down all of NASA if he thought he could get away with it. I have not seen any sign of his interest in science or technology except for how it might be applied to promoting his political agenda.

It's not about hate, it's concern about a man who openly scoffs at anyone who insists he obey the Constitution while he holds the highest office in the land, who runs up the largest deficit in the history of the world but constantly blames his problems on his predecessor. You will be fortunate indeed if you still have a job and a modicum of freedom when his term expires.

Anonymous said...

1. The shuttle design is more than 30 years old.
It still carries almost twice the crew and more than ten times the payload of Orion at a lower mission cost. It is insane to eliminate it without a new vehicle in operaiton.

2. It has been more expensive to maintain than expected.

So was Constellation, in fact the total mission cost is greater for Constellation than for Shuttle even though it carries almost no cargo and only 4 people.

3. For someone used to fighter aircraft (non-combat) safety records, as President Bush was, the shuttle's loss rate per flight is appalling.

The loss rate for Shuttle was lower than for Apollo. The V-22 has had twice the crashes and twice the fatalities in peacetime development over only ten years. The problems which caused the loss of Challenger and Columbia were immediately corrected, and the Shuttle has been flying safely and on schedule for years. If you or Bush believe the Shuttle is unsafe you are obligated to call for the next launch to be stopped. Bush didn't even show up for his UTAs, and his National Guard commander eventually kicked him out of the F-102 squadron, ending his flying career.

4. "President Bush actually had a plan to put us on the moon again. The problem with it was that the US government's fiscal situation was already bad. His solution was to cancel the shuttle so the "savings" could be put into Orion, etc."

What conceivable practical value is there to America in re-enacting project Apollo for $150 billion using obsolete technology as old or older than the Shuttle? Apollo was canceled by Nixon because it was much too expensive.

All the fuel that provides the energy that puts the Shuttle in orbit costs less than $850,000. Over 99% of the cost is due to unanticipated maintenance and support costs that resulted from decisions made early in design. With the lessons of the last 30 years we could certainly build a reusable spacecraft that would be safe and practical. That was the plan in the 1990s, when NASA had the X-33, X-34, DC-X and X-37 programs. It makes no sense to cancel human spaceflight for five years and permanently disperse the only workforce in the world with hands-on experience with reusable spacecraft. But all the Reusable Launch Vehicles were canceled by Bush. He destroyed the future to re-enact the past.