New SpaceX Falcon launch... finally?

[hugix]

Satellites take a couple of millions and a couple of years to build. It can wait a couple of days to go to space.

[Tiberion]

Not quite: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Froscosmos.ru%2F20654%2F&edit-text=

Roscosmos states June 25th here for a first test launch. Though I suppose if you define "maiden flight" as "first regular launch with regular payload and mission objective" then this doesn't qualify.

Huh, I hadn't read anything about it. I was reading about it on russianspaceweb a couple weeks ago when researching and it still said December for testing.

Any launch for them is good at this point, as its literally been in development since the 1990s.

Edit: This says it may be pushed to the 27th. I guess the delays are going around.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Tiberion

[Agamemnon]

Edit: This says it may be pushed to the 27th. I guess the delays are going around.

from what i seen, it is pushed to 27th; because of the recent death of v.popovkin (former roscosmos head)

[sgt_flyer]

@Tiberion mmh - after rereading Russianspaceweb article - (specifically http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara1_pp_preflight.html) the angara's A1.2 was originally stated for a may 2014 launch - the december launch date was meant for the angara A5 version (so, let's wait & see )

[Ravenchant]

the december launch date was meant for the angara A5 version (so, let's wait & see )

It's almost a given it will suffer delays, but that's still great news After all, we're talking middle ground between Proton and Delta 4 heavy here...

[SUJETO]

The Antares guys delayed his ISS mission too,, but they got more smarter (supposed) they planed a more long date to launch his Sygnus.

THEY not have (a nearly gov help in his installations)

Edited June 23, 2014 by SUJETO

[khyron42]

I'm almost wondering if that Dragon is ever going to fly; delay after delay.

In a fun history note, they tried this Dragon on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and now will retry Tuesday. Of those, Saturday was scrubbed for weather; the other two were SpaceX issues.

The Saturday attempt was "not webcast because we've been ready to move away from the webcasts for a while now and they just take a lot of resources." This annoyed a lot of people - the staff of their paying customer, the public, and I would guess a fair number of long-time space launch workers. For the first time since before Apollo, there was a launch attempt at the cape that did not have a public broadcast.

Sunday they announced they would be webcasting it, and then scrubbed well before the webcast started. I joked to a friend that the scrubbed due to webcast server issues.

[sojourner]

This is not Dragon. This is Falcon.

Delayed again. now SpaceX is saying early July!

[PlonioFludrasco]

Maybe off-topic.

Guess who decided to save on web designers:

http://www.spacex.com/

http://www.teslamotors.com/

:D:D

I don't blame him, I would do the same if I had any website.

[Albert VDS]

^Really... I have no response to that.

I'm almost wondering if that Dragon is ever going to fly; delay after delay.

So what do you want to hear; an other scrub or a failed mission? Just launch it right? It's only $60m rocket, payload and their reputation on the line. I'm sure NASA would still let them launch astronauts if one of their rockets blew up.

[Eric S]

Guess who decided to save on web designers:

http://www.spacex.com/

http://www.teslamotors.com/

Not sure what your point is. The pages have some visual similarity, but that's really about it unless I'm overlooking something. The structure of the HTML/CSS in the pages resemble each other about as much as any two randomly selected pages that visually resemble each other would, so I'm pretty sure this isn't cut and paste web design where just the graphics and text/background colors change, if that's what you're implying.

[PlonioFludrasco]

Hey, it was just a joke!

[SUJETO]

the launch campaigns take long time,,, the orbicom guys can not tell to them: "sorry we need a more serious carrier rocket" ,, the problem is too in the payload manipulation in some cases a extreme observance is required, the SPACEX moves the payload like 2 times to do engines test... A special concern for that. Some satellites fail too due a small problems in his systems, a more problem about there are deployed as debris in a long time orbit,, this payload are special due a carrier for 6 satellites and his release system, adding more fragility and more provability to something goes wrong. SPACEX is a mediatic company, they never tell us what is truly happen there.

[Twreed87]

I really hope that when they do finally launch, the weather at the location the first stage splashes down at is nicer to allow for an easier recovery. I'm way more excited about the next step in reusability testing than the launch itself.

[astropapi1]

I really hope that when they do finally launch, the weather at the location the first stage splashes down at is nicer to allow for an easier recovery. I'm way more excited about the next step in reusability testing than the launch itself.

I don't think anybody could give less [redacted] about the satellites.

I really hope everything works out fine. Last time they landed in the middle of a storm.

[Nibb31]

I don't think anybody could give less [redacted] about the satellites.

Getting the satellite to orbit is what they are contracted to do. If for some reason the payload doesn't reach its proper orbit, it's going to be egg-in-face time for SpaceX after all their spectactular announcements about Mars colonies, reusable spaceships, and DoD lawsuits.

This is why they have huge pressure to get it right. Because of their PR, and because they are trying hard to get a piece of the DoD launch business cake, they are under much more scrutiny than another company and they can't afford a failure. SpaceX can only survive if it gets commercial and government customers. Reusablity is secondary.

[SUJETO]

Getting the satellite to orbit is what they are contracted to do. If for some reason the payload doesn't reach its proper orbit, it's going to be egg-in-face time for SpaceX after all their spectactular announcements about Mars colonies, reusable spaceships, and DoD lawsuits.

[...]

In other space agency they has a problem with a satellite propellant puncture, the satellite lost before they reach to his final GEO orbit. (pretty tumbling satellite to spot, Mag 1) the space agency blamed to the satellite manufacturer.

ITS EASY to "wash their hands."

And more if SPACEX, they never will tell you about a problem,,, They are supposed to and are PERFECT AND "COMERCIAL", "COMERCIAL", "COMERCIAL".

I will give a great applause when they made a MOVIE like space odyssey 2001. Talking about the MARS, private cheaply launch contracts, future awesome spaceships... BECAUSE that is the reality only exist in his CEO's minds. There are not money for that and in the future too. And is easy to know, read your newspaper in the INTERNATIONAL section, you will notice what are the money priorities in USA.

----

Not only that... There are only few ppl in USA not take in mind a thing about build rockets MADE IN USA 100%:

In a USA society manufacturing his things in CHINA and importing things of all around of world. Nobody ask about the cost of made such things. Places like China are cheap to do anything you could imagine for your business.

Manufacturing a thing in USA is expensive and more if it is space related. A lot of personnel and wages "skyrocketing", plus security issues, delicate installations, lobbing, top secret things, etc.

making only dreams to reach to MARS , MOON too, for USA 100% enthusiast.

Those are a POLITICAL cost in USA hard to pay. And hard to hide for a analytic person.

Edited June 24, 2014 by SUJETO
ortography

[shynung]

In other space agency they has a problem with a satellite propellant puncture, the satellite lost before they reach to his final GEO orbit. (pretty tumbling satellite to spot, Mag 1) the space agency blamed to the satellite manufacturer.

This happens only if the malfunction happened after the satellite in question has left the launcher, which has placed it in the proper transfer orbit to GEO. In this case, the launcher has done its job.

[Nibb31]

In other space agency they has a problem with a satellite propellant puncture, the satellite lost before they reach to his final GEO orbit. (pretty tumbling satellite to spot, Mag 1) the space agency blamed to the satellite manufacturer.

ITS EASY to "wash their hands."

Responsibility of each part of the spacecraft are clearly defined in the terms of the launch contract. The upper stage is typically part of the launcher, but GEO sats have their own propulsion systems, which can also fail, so it really depends on the sequence of events.

As for the rest of your post, I'm sorry, but I couldn't understand it. I understand that English isn't your first language, but you are going to have to make an effort if you want to be understood.

[SUJETO]

8th Delay now moved to first week of July.

A Delta launch coming ULA guys on 1 July

This happens only if the malfunction happened after the satellite in question has left the launcher, which has placed it in the proper transfer orbit to GEO. In this case, the launcher has done its job.

That is obvious, but the satellites on ground are fragile a lot (air conditioning, fuel, electronic, software systems, delicate parts.) Usually there are satellite owner personnel taking care about and servicing in ground. But removing the satellite of the rocket a pair of times could lead to some hidden part fails. like the example of the tumbling satellite. The carrier rocket company could say "that is not our problem after separation." but the payload was manipulated a lot and not delivered in a early date.

This is a current example of the coming launch French SPOT 7 in a INDIAN Rocket.

Is a complex equipment.

[shynung]

That is obvious, but the satellites on ground are fragile a lot (air conditioning, fuel, electronic, software systems, delicate parts.) Usually there are satellite owner personnel taking care about and servicing in ground. But removing the satellite of the rocket a pair of times could lead to some hidden part fails. like the example of the tumbling satellite. The carrier rocket company could say "that is not our problem after separation." but the payload was manipulated a lot and not delivered in a early date.

Generally, satellites are built to withstand occasional micrometeoroid impacts, so small knocks on the ground should cause little serious problems, if at all. They all look like the SPOT 7 depicted (more or less), because satellites don't need to be smooth, sleek, or aerodynamic; internally, they are built to last, since no repair missions are usually expected.

[Eric S]

Hey, it was just a joke!

NP, was trying to figure out if I was missing something. Wouldn't be the first time I didn't get what someone meant :-)

[NovaSilisko]

small knocks on the ground

[Kryten]

^You're looking at $135 million in repair bills.

[shynung]

-snip-

That's definitely not a small knock.