SpaceX (general discussion)

cluttonfred said:
Michel Van said:
There were allot of speculation on who culprits, the french media made speculation about CIA agents or US aerospace industry...
Click to expand...

Or maybe someone just dropped a rag?
Click to expand...

That's much more common than sabotage. Hospitals often have one person in a surgery team count what goes in and out of a patient (tools, bandages etc.) to make sure nothing gets forgotten and stays inside when the patient is sown up.
 
The situation just got more complicated

Politics start to meddling with the Case also.

ten republicans have send a letter to NASA, FAA and USAF
Complaining that there have now been two Falcon 9 explosions and no federal probe into what may be going wrong.
https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/10/04/spacex_letter.pdf

what is not true, because in both cases USAF, FAA, NASA and SpaceX work closely to figure out the problem
but there is very interesting detail !
The guy who behind this letter is Representative Mike Coffman (Rep Colorado)
And what lies in colorado ? the Headquarters of ULA !

Source:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/04/spacex_wants_control_explosion_investigation/
 
Michel Van said:
The situation just got more complicated

Politics start to meddling with the Case also.

ten republicans have send a letter to NASA, FAA and USAF
Complaining that there have now been two Falcon 9 explosions and no federal probe into what may be going wrong.
https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/10/04/spacex_letter.pdf

what is not true, because in both cases USAF, FAA, NASA and SpaceX work closely to figure out the problem
but there is very interesting detail !
The guy who behind this letter is Representative Mike Coffman (Rep Colorado)
And what lies in colorado ? the Headquarters of ULA !

Source:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/04/spacex_wants_control_explosion_investigation/
Click to expand...

I smell something fishy going on in the background. :eek:
 
News about AMOS-6 investigation
seems the usual suspect has strike again: the Helium COPV tank (Composite-Overwrapped Pressure Vessels)
SpaceX now making some COPV testing at McGregor test site, Texas

http://spaceflight101.com/falcon-9-amos-6/spacex-resorts-to-creative-testing-in-falcon-9-explosion-investigation/
 
Always wondered why some military air bases have jets parked well within shooting distance of major roads. Doesn't seem like a wise idea in these times. (And that's a damn shame really.)
 
flanker said:
Now, before Michel goes full conspiracy, i want to stress;
Click to expand...

For moment i stick to COPV tank failure, would be most logical one. that explains the fire.
 
Giving heads up; 8.5 hours from now, 22:00 UTC Elon Musk will have "ask me anything" on Reddit;

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/58yc14/elon_musk_will_be_doing_an_ama_on_rspacex_at_3pm/
 
flanker said:
Giving heads up; 8.5 hours from now, 22:00 UTC Elon Musk will have "ask me anything" on Reddit;

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/58yc14/elon_musk_will_be_doing_an_ama_on_rspacex_at_3pm/
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link flanker. I will try to remember when it starts.
 
45 min to go, will post link here when it starts. Please keep questions to SpaceX, preferably to ITS in specific.
 
Here's all of his Q&As from the thread, with the questions shortened a bit:

Q: What equipment and procedures will be required for refueling operations on Mars? Will they be designed to function autonomously for the initial unmanned test flight? Also, are there any plans to introduce a third variant of the ITS with just a large shuttle-like payload bay to allow for transporting bulkier cargo?

A: We are still far from figuring this out in detail, but the current plan is:
1. Send Dragon scouting missions, initially just to make sure we know how to land without adding a crater and then to figure out the best way to get water for the CH4/O2 Sabatier Reaction.
2. Heart of Gold spaceship flies to Mars loaded only with equipment to build the propellant plant.
3. First crewed mission with equipment to build rudimentary base and complete the propellant plant.
4. Try to double the number of flights with each Earth-Mars orbital rendezvous, which is every 26 months, until the city can grow by itself.
Click to expand...

Q: As a follow-up, considering the synodal reuse of the ITS spaceships, what form of permanent habitation do you foresee? Shipped modules or an (eventual) shift to in-situ resource utilization such as Martian rigolith/plastic-reinforced concrete structures?

A: Initially, glass panes with carbon fiber frames to build geodesic domes on the surface, plus a lot of miner/tunneling droids. With the latter, you can build out a huge amount of pressurized space for industrial operations and leave the glass domes for green living space.
Click to expand...

Q: What SpaceX technology/material still requires the most development for ITS to be a success?

A: It used to be developing a new metal alloy that is extremely resistant to oxidation for the hot oxygen-rich turbopump, which is operating at insane pressure to feed a 300 bar main chamber. Anything that can burn, will burn. We seem to have that under control, as the Raptor turbopump didn't show erosion in the test firings, but there is still room for optimization.
Biggest question right now is sealing the carbon fiber tanks against cryo propellant with hot autogenous pressurization. The oxygen tank also has an oxidation risk problem as it is pressurized with pure, hot oxygen. Will almost certainly need to apply an inert layer of some kind. Hopefully, something that can be sprayed. If need be, will use thin sheets of invar welded together on the inside.
Click to expand...

Q: In addition, what technology (if any) do you think you have nailed down/mastered at this point?

A: Not sure that we've really mastered anything yet. Maybe starting engines...
Click to expand...

Q: What level of completion is the interior habitable area layout of ITS at, and when might we expect to see renderings of it?

A: I think we need a new name. ITS just isn't working. I'm using BFR and BFS for the rocket and spaceship, which is fine internally, but...
Will aim to release details of the habitation section when we have actual live mockups. Maybe in a year or two.
Click to expand...

Q: As an add-on, how differently will the ITS be configured internally for a smaller crew (such as the first one) vs. a full 100-man crew?

A: Probably just pack the pressurized space with cargo. Early missions will be heavily weighted towards cargo. First crewed mission would have about a dozen people, as the goal will be to build out and troubleshoot the propellant plant and Mars Base Alpha power system.
Click to expand...

Q: 1. Can you divulge what the Vacuum Thrust+Isp figures are for the Sea-Level Raptor variant?
2. The ITS booster is able to hover. Will it ever use this capability to better ensure a successful landing at the expense of some small gravity losses, or is it hoverslams all the way?
3. What is the expected maximum acceleration that the ITS booster can withstand during entry/landing?

A: 1. Approx 360 sec vacuum Isp and 290 metric tons of thrust
2. A high acceleration landing is a lot more efficient, so there wouldn't be any hovering unless it encountered a problem or unexpected wind conditions. A rocket that lands slowly is wasting a lot of fuel.
3. Aiming for 20 g's
Click to expand...

Q: If I recall correctly on one of the slides it mentioned that there it will be 4-6 G's upon reentry. It does not specify, however, whether that will be during the landing burn or aerobreaking. It would be nice if that is clarified as well.

A: The spaceship would be limited to around 5 g's nominal, but able to take peak loads 2 to 3 times higher without breaking up.
Booster would be nominal of 20 and maybe 30 to 40 without breaking up.
Click to expand...

Q: We got a pretty good idea of what a Mars EDL looks like, but can you explain how the ITS and the Tanker plan to do an Earth EDL? Having talked with you at IAC about the Mars entry, we learned that there's very powerful thrusters that can handle attitude control. These work great for the Martian atmosphere, but what about on earth? There doesn't appear to be grid fins and the thrusters obviously have less authority here on earth, so what's the trick?

A: Good question -- that wasn't shown at IAC. The spaceship and tanker would have split body flaps for pitch and roll. Probably just use the attitude control thrusters for yaw.
Click to expand...

Q: I think one of the most shocking things in your ITS presentation for many people was the full size carbon fiber tank SpaceX built. Can you tell us a little bit more about the design, construction, and role of that particular test article?

A: Yeah, for those that know their stuff, that was really the big news :)
The flight tank will actually be slightly longer than the development tank shown, but the same diameter.
That was built with latest and greatest carbon fiber prepreg. In theory, it should hold cryogenic propellant without leaking and without a sealing linker. Early tests are promising.
Will take it up to 2/3 of burst pressure on an ocean barge in the coming weeks.
Click to expand...

Q: 1. Overall is the landing architecture of ITS booster and distances needed to be covered to be same as Falcon 9’s? Boostback, re-entry burn, landing burn?
2. Could you give us nuggets on what changes the ”final” Falcon 9 version (”v1.3”) you mentioned will have? Uprated engines obviously from 170k to 190k lbf, but what else? Is it mostly geared towards reusabilty over performance?
3. Gwynne mentioned 2 weeks ago that F9 v1.2 will be reused only once or twice while ”v1.3” should be reused up to 10 times. Can you talk about what are the limiting factors for Falcon 9 reuse?

A: The big booster will have an easier time of things than Falcon, as the mass ratio of the stages is lower and it will have lower density. Net result is that it won't come in quite as hot and fast as Falcon, so Falcon should be a bounding case on the big booster.
Final Falcon 9 has a lot of minor refinements that collectively are important, but uprated thrust and improved legs are the most significant.
Actually, I think the F9 boosters could be used almost indefinitely, so long as there is scheduled maintenance and careful inspections. Falcon 9 Block 5 -- the final version in the series -- is the one that has the most performance and is designed for easy reuse, so it just makes sense to focus on that long term and retire the earlier versions. Block 5 starts production in about 3 months and initial flight is in 6 to 8 months, so there isn't much point in ground testing Block 3 or 4 much beyond a few reflights.
Click to expand...

Q: The ITS Spaceship has two mystical spherical tanks, marked green in this slightly edited image. The whole tank design looks very exciting, and there's rampant speculation on this sub about the purpose of those spherical tanks...

A: Those are the header tanks that contain the landing propellant. They are separate in order to have greater insulation and minimize boil-off, avoid sloshing on entry and not have to press up the whole main tank.
Click to expand...

Q: Also, why does the booster only have one in 1 tank?

A: The liquid oxygen transfer tube serves as the header tank for ox
Click to expand...

Q: The tight cluster of 42 engines of the ITS Booster (cool number!! ) has created speculation on this sub that maybe they are packed so tighty because that way there's a "virtual nozzle" or "virtual aerospike" effect they can take advantage of: they can have shorter nozzles while most of the exhaust momentum of the inner engines is still axial.
Is there any truth to this speculation or is the tight packing done purely to scale up liftoff TWR?

A: It had to be 42 for important scientific and fictional reasons!
The dense packing is just to max out thrust to weight, but it would be cool if there was a virtual nozzle side effect.
Click to expand...

Q: According to your IAC presentation the ITS Spaceship has a Δv budget of 7.5 km/s when returning from Mars to Earth, with 150 tons of payload. With a much smaller payload it has a Δv budget in excess of 9.0 km/s - which is amazing!
Could this unprecedented amount of Δv be used to fly between Mars and Earth even outside the launch windows enforced by the synodic period, when payload mass is not a primary factor? It could be used for emergency purposes such as medical supplies/instruments and experts, or for other high priority but low mass cargo like critical replacements.

A: yes
Click to expand...
 
SpaceX hopes procedure fix can allow Falcon 9 launches to resume

Investigators probing the Sept. 1 explosion of a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket on its launch pad in Florida believe a high-pressure gas tank inside the launcher’s upper stage most likely burst due to the conditions of the helium loaded into it, a finding that could simplify fixes needed before the commercial booster can return to service.

If SpaceX is confident the problem lies in the Falcon 9’s fueling procedures, and not in the design of major components of the rocket, engineers could resolve the issue by adjusting how helium gas is loaded into the vehicle.
Click to expand...

http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/10/31/spacex-hopes-procedure-fix-can-allow-falcon-9-launches-to-resume/
 
sferrin said:
FighterJock said:
According to this report on Reuters News Agency SpaceX are looking at a return to flight of no latter than the 16th of December.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-space-spacex-idUKKBN13Q4KO
Click to expand...

I hope so. Would be nice to see them get back on track. I hope to see them launch Falcon Heavy in 2017.
Click to expand...

Same here sferrin, I hope that SpaceX launch on that date and get the Falcon Heavy launched in 2017, after the rocket explosion they need all the luck that they can get.
 
A bit more pressure on SpaceX now, since the Russian Progress ISS resupply flight just failed. ISS is in no immediate danger of running out of supplies, but the recent track record for resupply flights isn't great. There's a JAXA flight next week, and Space X is up next after that. They're scheduled for mid-January but I'd guess that will likely slip. Pad 40 is pretty well hosed and Pad 39A is only supposed to be ready by the end of the year if nothing goes wrong.
 
From Spaceflightnow.com
http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/12/02/spacex-sets-dec-16-for-first-flight-since-launch-pad-explosion/

"SpaceX sets Dec. 16 for first flight since launch pad explosion
Iridium said Thursday that the launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California is scheduled for Dec. 16 at 12:36 p.m. PST (3:36 p.m. EST; 2036 GMT), pending regulatory approval from the Federal Aviation Administration, the agency responsible for overseeing commercial space launches."
--------------------------------------

Payload is apparently 10 Iridium satellites. Must be packed like sardines to fit 10 of them.
 

Attachments

  • IridiumNEXTSatConfig.jpg
    IridiumNEXTSatConfig.jpg
    75.9 KB · Views: 314
flanker said:
Yes, barge.
Click to expand...

Cool, thanks. I like that you keep up on the space stuff so much. (I love that stuff but there are only so many hours in the day. ;) )
 
http://jalopnik.com/making-elon-musks-rocket-looks-like-the-most-metal-pott-1789943664
 
SpaceX is now talking about return to flight in January (rather than December). However, the FAA is not yet convinced; they haven't received a final investigation report or mitigation plan from SpaceX, and they can't really start approving a new launch permit without it.

https://www.wired.com/2016/12/spacex-says-ready-liftoff-faa-begs-differ/
 
TomS said:
SpaceX is now talking about return to flight in January (rather than December). However, the FAA is not yet convinced; they haven't received a final investigation report or mitigation plan from SpaceX, and they can't really start approving a new launch permit without it.

https://www.wired.com/2016/12/spacex-says-ready-liftoff-faa-begs-differ/
Click to expand...

So they could potentially move the launch to the Spring or Summer of next year? So it is best to wait and see when the final report into the investigation will be published.
 
FighterJock said:
So they could potentially move the launch to the Spring or Summer of next year? So it is best to wait and see when the final report into the investigation will be published.
Click to expand...

After Flight 19 failed. it took SpaceX 5 months to launch next flight,
SpaceX has allot of modification and rebuild to make, i guess that next launch happens around February
i would not be surprise, if Lox tank internal Helium tanks are redesign or even put outside Lox Tank, near engine.
or even that Merlin 1D Vacuum is modified for Pressurization for tank. by providing oxygen gas into Lox tank.
 
Michel Van said:
FighterJock said:
So they could potentially move the launch to the Spring or Summer of next year? So it is best to wait and see when the final report into the investigation will be published.
Click to expand...

After Flight 19 failed. it took SpaceX 5 months to launch next flight,
SpaceX has allot of modification and rebuild to make, i guess that next launch happens around February
i would not be surprise, if Lox tank internal Helium tanks are redesign or even put outside Lox Tank, near engine.
or even that Merlin 1D Vacuum is modified for Pressurization for tank. by providing oxygen gas into Lox tank.
Click to expand...

SpaceX has said they think they can fix the problem by changing their loading procedures without making any physical changes to the hardware.
 
Michel Van said:
FighterJock said:
So they could potentially move the launch to the Spring or Summer of next year? So it is best to wait and see when the final report into the investigation will be published.
Click to expand...

After Flight 19 failed. it took SpaceX 5 months to launch next flight,
SpaceX has allot of modification and rebuild to make, i guess that next launch happens around February
i would not be surprise, if Lox tank internal Helium tanks are redesign or even put outside Lox Tank, near engine.
or even that Merlin 1D Vacuum is modified for Pressurization for tank. by providing oxygen gas into Lox tank.
Click to expand...

A heat-exchanger girdling the turbine discharge pipe? I assume the Kerosene tank also employs internal Helium vessels. Now that they're chilling the fuel as well, would they not also be compelled to provide a heat-exchanger for that propellant as the cold seems to be a contributing factor of pressure vessel failure. Or is chemistry also identified as a failure factor?

Yikes.

David
 
The issue seems to be that loading helium into the tank inadvertently cooled it well below the temperature of the surrounding subcooled LOX. That was cold enough to actually solidify oxygen that was embedded in the COPV tank materials. And then the rising pressure in the helium tank compressed the COPV material, causing the solid oxygen crystals to explode. So the procedural fix is probably to keep the helium going into the tank a bit warmer than previously, ensuring that you never get temperatures low enough to freeze oxygen anywhere in the system.

The kerosene tank isn't affected, because even with densified RP, it never gets anything like as cold as the LOX tank and is in no danger of freezing oxygen.
 
Reason for the Amos 6 failure now located and report concluded.

http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates

Return to flight on Sunday 8th January 2017 with a payload of Iridium Next satellites.

http://spacenews.com/spacex-plans-jan-8-return-to-flight-after-completing-failure-investigation/
 
in mean time, Falcon 9 serial number 21 stands proudly in front of SpaceX Headquarters in Hawthorne, California

tumblr_oderm9Eosv1ttka3go1_1280.jpg
 
What kind of seismic loads are those designed for? ;)


But that is a pretty nifty billboard for your campus.
 
_Del_ said:
What kind of seismic loads are those designed for? ;)


But that is a pretty nifty billboard for your campus.
Click to expand...

I wonder if it's got any bullet holes in it yet.
 
Spacex twitter says hold-down firing for Sunday's launch has been completed. So they got past the point where things went south last time. At this stage I would think Spacex won't be making further (significant) changes in their booster design and operation so hopefully fewer surprises going forwards.
 
fredymac said:
Spacex twitter says hold-down firing for Sunday's launch has been completed. So they got past the point where things went south last time. At this stage I would think Spacex won't be making further (significant) changes in their booster design and operation so hopefully fewer surprises going forwards.
Click to expand...

Good news all round then. I hope that Sunday's launch goes without incident. I might watch the launch depending on what time it is in America.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom