{"id":39514,"date":"2014-09-04T01:16:19","date_gmt":"2014-09-03T17:16:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wp-productionenv-bjg9h2g2bgg5b8aa.southeastasia-01.azurewebsites.net\/news\/spacex-falcon-9-realigns-for-weekend-launch-of-asiasat-6\/"},"modified":"2014-09-04T01:16:19","modified_gmt":"2014-09-03T17:16:19","slug":"spacex-falcon-9-realigns-for-weekend-launch-of-asiasat-6","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/news\/spacex-falcon-9-realigns-for-weekend-launch-of-asiasat-6\/","title":{"rendered":"SpaceX Falcon 9 realigns for weekend launch of ASIASAT-6"},"content":{"rendered":"

SpaceX appears to have completed an evaluation into potential commonality between a failure on a test vehicle and its Falcon 9 fleet, following its now-approved request to the Eastern Range for Sunday morning launch of the ASIASAT-6 mission. The launch, to be conducted by SpaceX\u2019s Falcon 9 v1.1 rocket, was delayed just ahead of fueling last week, in order to triple-check its fault detection systems.\n<\/p>\n

ASAISAT-6 Mission:<\/p>\n

Last week\u2019s launch appeared to be going ahead as planned, as the SpaceX team entered the Delta Launch Readiness Review (LRR).<\/p>\n

The initial LRR had cleared the flow to proceed towards rollout plans, while the Delta review also covered late flow items, such as the replacement of two helium valves ahead of the rocket\u2019s short trip to the SLC-40 pad.<\/p>\n

\"2014-08-26The Delta review was still ongoing as the rocket was being erected on the pad, which explains the \u201clate\u201d call to postpone the launch \u2013 a call that came several hours before the approval to begin fueling the vehicle was required.<\/p>\n

The decision was based on the small potential of a commonality fault between the hardware on the Falcon 9 v1.1 and the F-9R Dev-1 test rocket that failed during her \u201chop\u201d at SpaceX\u2019s test facility in McGregor, Texas.<\/p>\n

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk \u2013 who had e-mailed the SpaceX team to notify them of his decision \u2013 later released a statement to the public, admitting he was not aware of any issues with the Falcon 9 v1.1, yet the postponement had been called in order to review all potential failure modes and contingencies.<\/p>\n

\"2014-08-23Notably, the sensor issue that ultimately resulted in the demise of the F-9R is unique to the test vehicle, from a failure standpoint.<\/p>\n

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});<\/p>\n

\u201cIt looks like it was a single point failure that existed on that test article, but does not exist on the Falcon 9. We think it was a failure of a single sensor,\u201d noted SpaceX\u2019s Dr. Garrett Reisman to the recent Future In-Space Operations (FISO) Working Group.<\/p>\n

\u201cFalcon 9 has multiple sensors that its algorithm uses, so the same failure on Falcon 9 would not effect the mission in any way. The fact that Falcon 9 had nine engines, even if it had eight engines it could overcome this issue.\u201d<\/p>\n

While it is possible a similar issue on the Falcon 9 v1.1 would have resulted in the vehicle aborting during ignition, whilst being held on the pad via the hold down bolts \u2013 pad hardware that isn\u2019t available for the test rockets at McGregor \u2013 the F9 can continue to rise uphill even with the loss of two engines.<\/p>\n

\"\"The only previous time an engine out scenario occurred was during the Falcon 9 v1.0 launch of the CRS-1\/SpX-1 Dragon.<\/p>\n

Imagery from the engine failure was dramatic, due to the rupturing of the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads.<\/p>\n

However, the engine did not explode and the vehicle continued on her path to safely insert the Dragon into orbit.<\/p>\n

Mr. Musk noted the review of the sensor issue was expected to take \u201cone to two weeks\u201d. This appears to have been the case, with L2 schedule information showing a preliminary target of this coming weekend for the realigned launch attempt.<\/p>\n

See Also<\/h4>\n