SpaceX Updates (Thread 8)

By DocM
in Science News & Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

+John. Subscriber¹

Posted
  • Subscriber¹
Posted
5 hours ago, philcruicks said:

CRS 10 has slipped again to:

18th Feb 1501 GMT (10:01 a.m. EST)

Even better! 

 

52 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

I love me some Sat/Sun launches...especially the morning ones.  Eat some pancakes, drink some coffee and watch a controlled explosion.

Amen! 1501UTC is a great time for a beer, some chips and a lovely bright Landing.

Grand Master

BetaguyGZT

Posted
Posted

Especially when it'll be the first daylight landing at LZ-1. :yes: Worthy of tailgate parties and grills ... I know I'd rather tailgate one of these than football or [barf.suppression=1] Nascar. It'll be "full glory" mode this time.

  • Draggendrop and +John.
  • Like 2
Mentor

Beittil

Posted
Posted

So long ago already, seems a bit unreal when you let that sink in :)

 

Also still remember everything from the COTS-2 demo mission as if it only happened just recently. Especially since Dutch astro Andre Kuipers was part of the capture team that very first time around :)

  • BetaguyGZT and Draggendrop
  • Like 2
Grand Master

BetaguyGZT

Posted
Posted

My understanding is they want LC-40 back up and running by June or July. I'm expecting August or September, there's a lot of GSE that got trashed in the mishap that they want to upgrade (since they're doing work there anyway).

Grand Master

DocM

Posted
  • Author
Posted

A bit OT, but what the hey 

 

http://www.teslarati.com/craft-brewery-opens-spacexs-backyard-creates-beer-employees/

 

Quote

 

When their shifts are over, SpaceX employees in Hawthorne, CA only have to walk a short way to their favorite new hangout: Los Angeles Ale Works. The soft opening of the area’s first craft brewery a couple of weeks ago has allowed SpaceX employees to personally sample a variety of what will be the house signatures brews — two-dozen taps pouring a wide variety of styles of small batch beer. Starting Thursday, when the grand opening will take place, crowds will descend upon the former industrial building and Hawthorne’s first brewery and tasting room. For now, a bunch of the SpaceX employees and locals have been savoring Los Angeles Ale Works’ inviting space.

 

Los Angeles Ale Works already serves two varieties named after SpaceX: a low-alcohol session India Pale Ale named Space XPA and a Space XPA Full Thrust double IPA.

 

 

SpaceX-beer-Hawthorne-Aleworks.jpg

  • BetaguyGZT and Draggendrop
  • Like 2
Grand Master

DocM

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

After all the handwriting by Andy Pasztor in WSJ, the GAO report on SpaceX  turbopump cracks is out.

 

For SpaceX the risks are getting enough Block 5 flights in before certification and the turbopump now non-issue  

 

Quote

During qualification testing in 2015, SpaceX identified cracks in the turbines of its engine. Additional cracks were later identified. Program officials told us that they have informed SpaceX that the cracks are an unacceptable risk for human spaceflight. SpaceX officials told us that they are working closely with NASA to eliminate these cracks in order to meet NASA’s stringent targets for human rating. Specifically, SpaceX has made design changes that, according to its officials, did not result in any cracking during initial life testing.

  • BetaguyGZT and Draggendrop
  • Like 2
Grand Master

BetaguyGZT

Posted
Posted

I smell a deliberate stalling attempt here. Not once has a SpaceX Falcon-9 engine failed during launch. This is, at most, an issue of reuse -- which SpaceX have already said they wouldn't reuse for anything that would be flying people on-board, NASA regulations aside -- and those S1's would follow a recertification process before being flown again.

 

SpaceX have addressed the issue and they appear to have corrected it, however slight that issue was. They're SpaceX -- nothing left to chance. But what it says to my mind is that whomever initiated this whole fiasco (let's call it what it is) was acting on the interests of others. They had to be. There's no other explanation for anyone to be digging around inside the reports like this and making such a huge deal out of it when it was already being dealt with internally. Only someone who knew what they were looking for could find reports like this -- and since the Merlin designs are available for scrutiny, all it takes is a couple of Engineers who are familiar with such problems to point out design shortcomings. And turbopump cracking is an easy one. That's happened to just about every Jet and Rocket engine that uses turboprops or turbopumps. Same basic idea behind turbocharged anything, really.

 

When we look at who would benefit from such a delay and the time it takes in addressing the turbopump cracking "issue" -- something that never was made an issue during the Shuttle Program -- the usual players are right there, playing in their sandbox trying to look innocent.

 

I think someone in OldSpace initiated this fiasco as a way to stall for time. SpaceX have been making too many leaps in too short a time and OldSpace is getting stressed out about their inabilities to meet milestones or even get their gear to work properly.

 

And anyone who has ever had to deal with Mil/Gov Contractors knows how absolutely dirty they can be if they've been backed into a corner and are on a deadline. I've seen VP's shout down Majors before. Absolutely vicious ... ehh .. "people". They're used to getting their way and will go to some pretty extraordinary ends to do it.

 

Of course there will never be any "fessing up" about Industrial Harassment or anything. It's not illegal to harass your competitor -- regardless of it being generally bad behavior, and unprofessional as hell -- but more and more I get the sense that OldSpace just can't keep up, and will start resorting to tactics like these more often just to level the playing field unless some sort of "business arrangement" is made.

 

Like ULA and Orbital-ATK did. Talk about having cake and eating it .... yeeesh. That's a whole other subject.

Community Regular

+rdlenk Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted (edited)

There was one launch that did have an engine failure. It was one of the early Falcon 9 missions and the mission overall was successful even with the 1/9 failure. I can't remember which one but will try to look it up.

 

Edit: It was CRS-1

 

Having said that, I agree with everything you said. I think there is a level of "well that's just business" especially when there are billions of dollars at stake but it is still pretty sad that the industry as a whole pretty much stopped innovating in the 70s until SpaceX came along.

  • Draggendrop
  • Like 1
Grand Master

Jim K Global Moderator

Posted
  • Global Moderator
Posted
7 minutes ago, rdlenk said:

There was one launch that did have an engine failure. It was one of the early Falcon 9 missions and the mission overall was successful even with the 1/9 failure. I can't remember which one but will try to look it up.

 

Edit: It was CRS-1

 

Having said that, I agree with everything you said. I think there is a level of "well that's just business" especially when there are billions of dollars at stake but it is still pretty sad that the industry as a whole pretty much stopped innovating in the 70s until SpaceX came along.

Yep... One engine failure... but it wasn't the turbo pump iirc, but a material defect in the chamber.  Cool thing about that failure is it didn't lead to RUD. :)

  • Draggendrop
  • Like 1
Grand Master

+John. Subscriber¹

Posted
  • Subscriber¹
Posted
16 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

Yep... One engine failure... but it wasn't the turbo pump iirc, but a material defect in the chamber.  Cool thing about that failure is it didn't lead to RUD. :)

If anything it showed that the rocket would be fine if one/some did fail, and that the engine could power out without destroying itself

  • Jim K and Draggendrop
  • Like 2
Community Regular

+rdlenk Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted

CRS-1 was a partial failure as its secondary cargo (Orbcomm-2) had to be released early to meet ISS safety regulations and burned up in the atmosphere. Overall it did show the F9 to be very robust and demonstrated its engine-out capability. The secondary payload was only lost because of an abundance of cation (fully deserved when dealing with human life) for objects that might potentially get close to the ISS orbit. Orbcomm knew about this regulation and that it increased the chance of losing their payload but the agreed to it because they got a discount on launch fees. 

 

I brought this up only because Unobscured Vision said the F9 had never had an engine failure during launch which just isn't the case.  Maybe 'failure' is a strong word for CRS-1 as the engine actually just shut itself down due to a detected pressure drop in the chamber and did not really 'fail'. So if anything, it just reinfored how well F9 can deal with issues and gracefully handle anomalies.

  • Draggendrop
  • Like 1
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing