SpaceX Updates (Thread 7)

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Just now, flyingskippy said:

I just checked the vid and didn't see anything. I could be looking in the wrong area too though.  I did see a green flash after engine shutdown characteristic of the TEA-TEB ignition system. Maybe the ignition system took some damage as well. 

I also forgot to mention, that various posters had mentioned this again with respect to the images and video's at the dock, prior to lift. Apparently this was no big deal and a design that worked in this instance. They are smaller covers used for access as well. Still needs to be confirmed though.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

3 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

Talking about this area right @Draggendrop?

 

 

Whereas the other barge landing looks like it had a black panel across.

 

 

 

Still...phenomenal ... data ... plus they'll be able to reuse something from it.

 

Excellent eyes....Thank you.   Hopefully we will get some info on this later, but I am glad they worked as designed.

[flyingskippy]

Ahh I see the panel now.  If it did happen before landing then at least we know that the system worked the way it was supposed to. I did notice the thermal blankets were pretty much toast on the photos  of the booster going to 39A.

 

Could the panels have been taken off by ground crew to ensure the fire was out? 

[Draggendrop Veteran]

This was also a confirmation, as it was noticed to be off before the ground crew got to them in port. As far as the ASDS, we only have the landing and shots of it standing before the service ships got to the ASDS.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

This is an overexposed image to show the octaweb a little better

image link

 

I have not done this myself yet, but several have mentioned that a frame at a time glance, during the landing video, will show the panels off. Also, have read mention that this panel is able to be ejected, and were ejected during CRS-1 single engine malfunction, to relieve pressure on the other engines.

 

Some have mentioned, the ablative was meant to take a beating, and in this case, what was left, blew off. 

 

I have all the confidence in the world, that this is a treasure trove of data for high velocity and high heat re-entries, of which, will afford data to improve ablative, modify operating envelope and to see what the present limits are prior to next design changes. The core, after inspection would supply knowledge to the abusive worst conditions, and the amount of reusable parts thereof, making a good marker to compare others to.

 

What amazes me, is the extreme velocities on the way down, with a less than ideal re-entry shape at the octaweb, where any opening will allow pressurized atmosphere to cause issues, and the panels have held up till this launch. This is outstanding, and IMHO, the damage will be less than it looks, as we know 3 engines were working fine as well as the control system.

 

[Draggendrop Veteran]

One more image...

 

 

image link

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Quote

The Dragon spacecraft is on its way to the International Space Station this morning and is performing nominally following the launch of the SpaceX CRS-1 official cargo resupply mission from Cape Canaveral, Florida at 8:35PM ET Sunday, October 7, 2012.

 

Approximately one minute and 19 seconds into last night’s launch, the Falcon 9 rocket detected an anomaly on one first stage engine. Initial data suggests that one of the rocket’s nine Merlin engines, Engine 1, lost pressure suddenly and an engine shutdown command was issued. We know the engine did not explode, because we continued to receive data from it. Panels designed to relieve pressure within the engine bay were ejected to protect the stage and other engines. Our review of flight data indicates that neither the rocket stage nor any of the other eight engines were negatively affected by this event.

 

As designed, the flight computer then recomputed a new ascent profile in real time to ensure Dragon’s entry into orbit for subsequent rendezvous and berthing with the ISS. This was achieved, and there was no effect on Dragon or the cargo resupply mission.

http://www.spacex.com/news/2012/10/08/spacex-crs-1-mission-update

 

I "bolded" the part about the panels...At least we know they are made to come off when required.

[DocM]

There are two ways to read the tweet

 

1) this stage is too damaged to reused, so stages in better condition are worth refurbishment attempts

 

2) this stage is as damaged as much as it can be and still be reused, so stages in worse condition are not worth refurbishment

 

We shall see which it is

[Draggendrop Veteran]

I'll take #2 please.

[DocM]

More in that thread

 

 

[DocM]

 

[flyingskippy]

Sounds like this is something they anticipated and were already working a fix for.  

[+John. Subscriber¹]

1 hour ago, DocM said:

 

I mean that's a fairly silly question? What's Elon gonna say.... 'nope, that's it. We're done innovating' 

[BetaguyGZT]

This one just proves they're resilient and robust. Obviously there are always things that can be improved, but SpaceX accounted for things within expected parameters going pear-shaped and designed Falcon-9's to deal with them. Nobody else's gear could deal with it, I promise you.

 

Looking at the business end of the returned S1, we can also see some busted stuff on that center Merlin's gimbal. It looked a off-neutral when it was sitting upright on the ASDS too. That could be some of the damage Elon was talking about. Maybe it's just something jammed in there?

[flyingskippy]

18 minutes ago, Unobscured Vision said:

Looking at the business end of the returned S1, we can also see some busted stuff on that center Merlin's gimbal. It looked a off-neutral when it was sitting upright on the ASDS too. That could be some of the damage Elon was talking about. Maybe it's just something jammed in there?

I think it was mentioned else where that it could just be the hydraulic lines depressurizing after engine shut down.  The middle engine looks lower cause it dropped to its resting position without the hydraulic pressure. 

[Draggendrop Veteran]

 

 

That panel is a fair size when looking at this tweet...

 

 

 

larger image...

 

image link

[Draggendrop Veteran]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

2 minutes ago, Draggendrop said:

 

 

haha...wasn't Doc saying something about this yesterday (or the day before)

[Draggendrop Veteran]

5 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

haha...wasn't Doc saying something about this yesterday (or the day before)

That was probably me in my mini rant...my bad.....

 

Quote

We now have numerous small sat launchers, in various stages of development. These launchers are mainly "newspace", which are smart, quick and able to innovate immediately.
 
IMHO, the days of NASA designing launchers, should be over. The bureaucratic design does not afford the levels of innovation, that a newspace venture can do. NASA is outstanding at probe design and spurring innovation in industry, which has, ironically, been responsible for the birth of newspace by giving valuable insight, knowledge and startup resources.
 
"Newspace" has a life of it's own now, and will not be stopped due to the market economy and support structures available to startups.

 

Edited May 17, 2016 by Draggendrop
added quote

[Jim K Global Moderator]

17 minutes ago, Draggendrop said:

That was probably me in my mini rant...my bad.....

aaaah yes.  Sorry, I was having a flash back to a discussion in one of the Trump threads (which Doc and I do not see eye to eye on...haha).  We were discussing funding of the Trump wall ... and I believe he mentioned defunding the SLS since SpaceX has the FH and BFR on tap.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

8 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

aaaah yes.  Sorry, I was having a flash back to a discussion in one of the Trump threads (which Doc and I do not see eye to eye on...haha).  We were discussing funding of the Trump wall ... and I believe he mentioned defunding the SLS since SpaceX has the FH and BFR on tap.

Then again, a few of us seem to have this view once we saw SpaceX become viable, as well as the myriad of "newspace" launchers come on board. In times of limited funding, one needs maximum bang (no pun intended) for your buck, which would entail staying with your "strengths".....

[Jim K Global Moderator]

26 minutes ago, Draggendrop said:

Then again, a few of us seem to have this view once we saw SpaceX become viable, as well as the myriad of "newspace" launchers come on board. In times of limited funding, one needs maximum bang (no pun intended) for your buck, which would entail staying with your "strengths".....

Yep, what SpaceX is doing is amazing.  Once they launch one of the Stage 1's that they've recovered ... and start recovering/reusing the FH and BFR stages ... ching ching ... it should be game over for the SLS.  I mean...even just recovering one booster successfully on the FH is more cost beneficial than losing the entire rocket.  Recovering all three boosters (FH) and being able to reuse them ... no brainer.  Once they figure out the stage 2 aspect ... yea ... I just don't see how NASA could justify staying in the rocket business ... instead they'll need to switch their sole focus on conducting great research through ISS, probes, landers, rovers and eventually putting boots on the moon and/or Mars surface utilizing launch systems like SpaceX.

[BetaguyGZT]

Completely agree. In fact, this model is what OldSpace companies need to be looking at -- and getting on board with. SpaceX has a winning formula, and they've proven that on more than one occasion that they're happy to do business with anyone so long as the other party is being courteous, respectful, and above-board. This includes OldSpace companies like ULA and Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Immarsat ... who they're launching payloads for (and getting A+, five-star reviews for the product and service).

 

Yeah. SpaceX are more than game for whatever. All that's needed now are the "special objectives" and the funding to make it happen more quickly then otherwise stated on the "Big Board". NASA wants Mars in four years rather than 2025? It's got a price tag, fellas -- but it's do-able. 

 

Think of the big push to get to the Moon in '65 ... that's what'll have to happen again. Only this time, most of the Technology that will do the job has already been developed or is already on hard drives, waiting for funding ...  

[Beittil]

It still cracks me up how ULA gets called Old Space (due to their parent companies) while it is factually seen younger than SpaceX

[DocM]

Being a May 2, 2005 joint venture run mostly from the LockMart and Boeing board rooms, their OldSpace culture sticks to ULA like dog poop to a boot.