First SpaceX Launch Countdown

[spacester]

My point is that those folks just might have got so used to the paperwork doing their thinking for them that no one could be bothered to use their eyeballs and look to see if the bolts were there. If the bolts were not visible in that configuration, they should have been. A more common-sense system, not dependent on the paperwork for the intelligence, would have designed the fixture to allow visual inspection of these mission-critical bolts.<br /><br />Of course it's an industry for professionals. Just like every other industry. Some are more in touch with human nature than others. I find the Aerospace industry to be rigorous to the point of stupidity.<br /><br />Human Beings get complacent and distracted. You can pretend that Aerospace Workers Are Too Professional To Allow That, or you can design things so that the tiniest bit of complacency and distraction doesn't cost you millions of dollars. Like other industries do.<br /><br />Paper trails are good. Counting on the paperwork to do your thinking for you is silly at best. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[erauskydiver]

Nobody is saying that the paperwork should replace intelligent thinking and logic. However, it does try to support it and back it up. You are right, there were two failures. The failure of the night shift to follow procedures and do their paperwork, and the failure of the morning shift to use their eyeballs. However, the answer is not "throw away all paperwork and rely on the human." This arguement is no different than the arguement of using automation to fix/ prevent human error. In both cases, there must be a fine balance of process and paperwork ("automation") and hands on thinking ("manually doing something").

 

[drwayne]

Paperwork should be a by-product of process. Process in turn should not preclude using your head. (And eyes and ears and nose...).<br /><br />A well designed process, with training to back it up encourages observing, it even encourages people saying "STOP, somethings not right here" when they have concerns.<br /><br />The problem is, process is a balancing act, with some people, frequently management, focusing on the by-products - like paper work.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[erauskydiver]

Well said drwayne. All processes, paperwork and "real human thinking/ actions" should follow AESOP.<br /><br />Assignment (risks); Equipment (properly working); Situation (mission go or no-go or "this is stupid!"); Obstacles (potential hazards and problems), and Personnel (individual experience and skill level).

 

[propforce]

I agree with you that 'paperwork' is very important especially when it comes to launchng a rocket that's delivering a billion dollar national asset (code word for NRO) satellite. It's not just the dollar amount, or the time it takes to build this satellite, but the fact is that the nature launching rocket has so many people involved in all different part of process, it is impossible to pass ALL the critical infomation from one person to the next. <br /><br />The same people who designed the rocket (or spacecraft) is different from the people who procure parts to be assembled onto the rocket by another whole different group of people, then handed over to another group of people who set it up on the launch people then hand it over to another set of people who sit in front of launch control room.<br /><br />Get my drift ?<br /><br />The process is not exactly 'routine' neither. This engine has a sligth different performance variation than the last, this valve sticks a bit so would require a little longer activating time, this mission has extra 'kit' so we need to rebalance the Cg of vehicle and readjust the guidance computer control parameters, etc. etc. etc. A liquid fuel rocket is an ultra high performance machine that each part needs to be fine tuned in order to deliver its overall performance. <br /><br />Every deviation requires the cognizant engineer to write a report explain/ justify why this part is okay to be used for this vehicle and for this mission. Each mission is unique and every bit of details are analyzed and comared with previous missions to assure that we are within the margin of safety and the assurance of mission success. Because once you light that rocket and it takes off the ground, there's no second chance to say "oh wait !!!" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[comga]

I am sorry to have to agree with you about losing faith and enthusiam for SpaceX. They seem to be getting good publicity and big contracts without launching, and so have an incentive to continuously postpone. Musk once said that he wouldn't talk about anything beyond the cartoons of the Falcon V until after first launch, but now they post an entire conceptual fleet. This includes side boosters which they dissed not long ago when their "large" rocket evolved from from three side-by-side Falcon I's to the Falcon V with five engines. <br /><br />There is also an odd lack of images being posted. In the begining, they posted everything, big or small. Now they talk about all the hardware they have taken to or built at the new launch site, but they don't show any pictures. Does anyone believe that they go to what Musk describes as a "tropical pradise" and not take along a camera? That single image of the Falcon I in the dark would look the same if it were taken at Vandenberg. Can someone contact someone to get a few images of the new hardware and facilities posted?

 

[spacester]

Ah, some excellent points gentlemen, good stuff.<br /><br />What I'm wondering is just what kind of process control are the top-notch Aerospace Professionals at SpaceX using?<br /><br />A big part of the SpaceX formula is low operations costs. This is reflected in every aspect of the design of the company and the vehicles. Certainly the process control systems are no exception. I imagine they are indeed taking that "technology" to "the next level", but I don't really know many details.<br /><br />Will the SpaceX engineering administrative types be presenting their advanced process control system at future conferences for those kind of folks? Are they maybe even the vanguard of a revolution in these things in Aerospace circles? Or are they doing such things more along the lines of business as usual? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

I'm hoping that a lot more information will be coming out of spacex after the first launch.<br /><br />I'm hoping that they aren't posting that much now for the reasons that<br /><br />a) They are just too busy getting that first launch ready.<br /><br />b) Elon Musk wants to have a launch or possibly two under his belt so that when he talks he has a lot more credability.<br /><br />So far he and his company sound impressive and they probably are, but one or two successful launches will tend to erase any doubts as to his abilities.<br /><br />I'm taking a wait and see atitude at this point until after the first launch.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">They seem to be getting good publicity and big contracts without launching, and so have an incentive to continuously postpone.</font>/i><br /><br />I think they only get paid after a successful launch. So while they have a $100 million contract with the DOD, that contract is only a <i>promise</i> of money. SpaceX will only get paid for a launch.<br /><br />Each month of no launch is more money out of Musk's bank account, and I am sure Mrs. Musk (who probably is not as enthusiastic about space as Elon is) is not happy about that.</i>

 

[propforce]

<i>"..... and I am sure Mrs. Musk (who probably is not as enthusiastic about space as Elon is) is not happy about that. ..."</i><br /><br />Boys who want to play with their rockets !!! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mikejz]

If SpaceX turns out to be a complete failure, I would still kill to have Musk's bank account

 

[propforce]

<i>"... If SpaceX turns out to be a complete failure, I would still kill to have Musk's bank account ..."</i><br /><br />So now that we know what you will do for money, we're just negotiating the price? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[erauskydiver]

What Skunk Works does is not entirely the same as what Space X is doing. The purpose of Skunk Works (these days at least) is rapid prototyping. Take the JSF for example. Skunk Works as well as the normal engineering force in Fort Worth inititated design of the F-35. At some point in the development phase, the two branched off. Skunk Works turned the preliminary designs into the X-35, while Fort Worth continued to develop the production configuration of the F-35. Skunk Work's job was to develop two flying concept demonstrators very quickly. That is what they do... rapid prototyping. There is still some engineering administration, but it is minimal. The normal engineering force deals with the longer term full scale production design and development work. Yes Space X is in concept and demonstration mode right now. However, they are planning to pump these rockets out to support a buisness. At that point you leave the world of pure engineering and rapid prototyping to a realm of engineering and more rigorous processes and, yes, paperwork.

 

[erauskydiver]

Ooops, duplicate post.

 

[comga]

It used to be that they were going to get paid only for launches on a stricktly commercial basis. I agree that the $100M is not real cash; they don't even have a launch date associated with it on their manifest. However, they reportedly have staffed up to 300 people on some big unannounced contracts, had a publicity release with a NASA apartchik over long term cooperation, and are skipping over Falcon V in favor of Falcon 9 and beyond (to infinity!) because it wasn't big enough, although they don't say what it wasn't big enough for. <br /><br />Musk once said he would refrain from making statements about larger versions of the Falcon until he launched the Falcon I. He has had a change of mind, big time. To me, this looks like they are being lead down the garden path by wads of cash. SpaceX would not be the first commercial space company lured to their death in this manner.<br /><br />I surely and truely hope this assesment is wrong.<br /><br />

 

[mikejz]

Rapid growth, and the inability to manage it is a very common reason why a business fails.<br /><br />Hope SpaceX is not one of those.

 

[barrykirk]

That sort of management structure can work for small companies of less than 300 employees. I'm not too sure what the actual cutoff point is. In fact it might not be a hard number.<br /><br />Can work.... It depends on the top dog person. Is Elon Musk the type of guy that can make it work? Time will tell.

 

[erauskydiver]

We must not forget that all of the aerospace giants were once small companies like SpaceX.

 

[mikejz]

Well, if you want to get technical, all of them were small well before the term 'aerospace' came into being.

 

[erauskydiver]

Fair enough. I sometimes wonder if the industry is what it is more as a result of the customer (the government) or the contractors.... or both.

 

[mikejz]

Do you have any documentation that SpaceX is 100% owned by Musk? There could very well be other investors.

 

[erauskydiver]

OK, I am not a business minded person by any means, so this might be a stupid question for those of you who are: If SpaceX goes public, does that make it vulnerable to being bought out by other businesses?

 

[henryhallam]

I'm not a business person either, but:<br /><br />Yes, though I think Elon could choose to retain say 51% of the shares so that no other business could have majority control. However, even if another firm bought 49% SpaceX would still be answerable to them and would have a responsibility to produce some short-term profits.

 

[mikejz]

You could also set up seperate classes of stock with different voting rights.

 

[spacefire]

Musk's wealth is estimated at 238million. How long is that going to last him for such ambitious projects like the Falcon V and IX if he doesn't make any dough off the Falcon I in the meanwhile? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>