Jump to content



Photo

SpaceX Updates (Thread 4): F9, FH & Dragon


428 replies to this topic

#391 flyingskippy

flyingskippy

    Neowinian

  • 86 posts
  • Joined: 31-October 13
  • Location: GA

Posted 29 July 2014 - 12:40

I wonder if they plan on returning the core by barge or plane once it lands on the island.


#392 Beittil

Beittil

    Neowinian

  • 226 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 13

Posted 29 July 2014 - 13:48

By barge would probably mean it needs to be completely packed and watertight to, for quick turnaround a return transport by air would seem the logical choice to me.



#393 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,287 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 29 July 2014 - 19:33

Why packed?

The F9R Dev-1 in Texas stays out in the weather and storms and can obviously re-fly. Hanger time is mostly for post-flight checks and mods. It also flies often, having flown about 20 times. They don't put out a video every flight. The M1D's are estimated to have a life of between 30 and 40 cycles.

Their goal is gas 'n go.

And it wouldn't fit in aircraft. The F9 core is >150 feet long (138' + interstage) and even the Antonov AN-225 only has a 144 foot cargo hold.

#394 Beittil

Beittil

    Neowinian

  • 226 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 13

Posted 29 July 2014 - 21:26

Packed because of storms and salt water! I mean, water per se isn't that damaging to a rocket, but sea water... ugh.



#395 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,287 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 29 July 2014 - 22:50

The closer the launch pad and landing barge are the better. Then with care launch weather = landing weather, and we're talking <8 minutes.

#396 SarK0Y

SarK0Y

    Neowinian

  • 116 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 13

Posted 31 July 2014 - 22:14

 

Rand Simberg ‏@Rand_Simberg 8 h
@JustIncidentals No more water landings. And Spaceport America has cost more and taken longer than expected. @flspacereport @spacecom

wtf?????? will landings be only onto floating platform (fp) or no landings at all????????



#397 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,287 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 01 August 2014 - 01:48

If you'd read the thread since your last post, especially my replies, your have a clue. As of now, <crickets>, and I'm not re-typing them.

#398 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,287 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 01 August 2014 - 08:25

http://www.spacex.co...-chamber-crewed

SPACEX LAUNCHES 3D-PRINTED PART TO SPACE, CREATES PRINTED ENGINE CHAMBER FOR CREWED SPACEFLIGHT

Through 3D printing, or additive manufacturing, robust and high-performing rocket parts can be created and offer improvements over traditional manufacturing methods. SpaceX is pushing the boundaries of what additive manufacturing can do in the 21st century, ultimately making the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft more reliable, robust and efficient than ever before.

On January 6, 2014, SpaceX launched its Falcon 9 rocket with a 3D-printed Main Oxidizer Valve (MOV) body in one of the nine Merlin 1D engines. The mission marked the first time SpaceX had ever flown a 3D-printed part, with the valve operating successfully with high pressure liquid oxygen, under cryogenic temperatures and high vibration.

Compared with a traditionally cast part, a printed valve body has superior strength, ductility, and fracture resistance, with a lower variability in materials properties. The MOV body was printed in less than two days, compared with a typical castings cycle measured in months. The valves extensive test program including a rigorous series of engine firings, component level qualification testing and materials testing has since qualified the printed MOV body to fly interchangeably with cast parts on all Falcon 9 flights going forward.

SUPERDRACO ENGINE CHAMBER

For almost 3 years, SpaceX has been evaluating the benefits of 3D printing and perfecting the techniques necessary to develop flight hardware. One of our first major successes was printing a SuperDraco Engine Chamber in late 2013. Today, SpaceX is testing the SuperDraco engines as part of its crewed spaceflight program and the Dragon Version 2 vehicle. In late 2013, SpaceX successfully fired a SuperDraco engine at full thrust using a 3D-printed engine chamber developed entirely in-house.

SuperDracos will power the Dragon Version 2 spacecrafts revolutionary launch escape system, the first of its kind. Should an emergency occur during launch, eight SuperDraco engines built into Dragons side walls will produce up to 120,000 pounds of axial thrust to carry astronauts to safety. The system will also enable Dragon Version 2 to land propulsively on land with the accuracy of a helicopter. This will ultimately make the spacecraft fully and rapidly reusable able to be refueled and reflown multiple times, drastically lowering the cost of space travel.

The chamber is regeneratively cooled and printed in Inconel, a high performance superalloy. Printing the chamber resulted in an order of magnitude reduction in lead-time compared with traditional machining the path from the initial concept to the first hotfire was just over three months.

During the hotfire test, which took place at SpaceXs rocket development facility in McGregor, Texas, the SuperDraco engine was fired in both a launch escape profile and a landing burn profile, successfully throttling between 20% and 100% thrust levels. To date the chamber has been fired more than 80 times, with more than 300 seconds of hot fire.

The Dragon Version 2 spacecraft represents a leap forward in spacecraft technology across the board from its Version 1 predecessor. When SuperDracos are flown on a demonstration of Dragons launch escape system later this year, it will be the first time in history that a printed thrust chamber has ever been used in a crewed space program.

SpaceX looks forward to continuing to fine tune both the SuperDraco engines and additive manufacturing program, in order to develop the safest, most reliable vehicles ever flown.

SuperDraco
printed_super_draco_3_lr.jpg

SuperDraco pod

v2_superdraco_jetpack.jpg

SuperDraco throttling / pulsing


#399 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,287 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 06 August 2014 - 10:13

If they're going to do the Dragon V2 pad abort in November then DragonFly tests at McGregor should be starting within a few weeks.

@Leone_SN Garret Reisman says @SpaceX is on track for a pad abort test in Nov. (Florida), then an inflight abort test in Jan. (Vandenberg). #AIAAspace



#400 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,287 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 19 August 2014 - 16:20

Money for deving Raptor?

http://techcrunch.co...4/08/19/spacex/

Elon Musks SpaceX Is Raising Money At A Valuation Approaching $10B

Space Exploration Technologies, the commercial space transportation startup founded by Elon Musk with ambitions to land people on Mars, is raising investment that values the company somewhere south of $10 billion, TechCrunch has learned.

These new details are emerging while SpaceX, as the company is more commonly known, continues to make advances with its own spacecraft and rack up more agreements for future commercial and government launches. The company also potentially faces stiffer competition from other commercial firms that are looking to compete more aggressively in the new space race.

The latest capital infusion includes a large secondary investment, which appears to be somewhere in the region of $200 million. This confirms some of the details published in April this year by Quartz, which cited a source reporting that the company might be raising between $50 million and $200 million.
>



#401 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,287 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 19 August 2014 - 16:32

And for fun....

The Real Falcon:



#402 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 16,032 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 19 August 2014 - 17:51

... AAaahahahaha!!



#403 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,287 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 28 August 2014 - 07:06

Wayne Hale has a blog post about veteran NASA lead systems engineer John Muratore, who joined SpaceX this spring. They got one of the great greybeards. His presence is going to greatly benefit the F9R, Dragon V2, Falcon Heavy, BFR and MCT programs.

https://waynehale.wo.../john-muratore/

#404 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,287 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 28 August 2014 - 13:59

Former astronaut Garrett Reisman of SpaceX gave a presentation to the Future In-Space Operations (FISO) Working Group on August 27.

Some interesting stuff, especially about them using a flight termination system that doesn't need an explosive shaped charge to unzip the tanks.



http://spirit.as.ute...man_8-27-14.pdf

Q: What can you tell us about the Texas incident?

A: The test was of our three engine variant of Grasshopper, what we call F-9R Dev. It 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. Falcon 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.

We've been taking a lot of risks with Grasshopper. We're flying this in flight regimes and conops that it was not designed for in an effort to learn. One of those risks bit us. One of the single point failures failed which we knew was a possibility. The failure was such that the flight control could not maintain the lateral boundries of its safety zone and so the flight was terminated intentionally upon exceeding that lateral boundry. That's the most we considered definitively right now.

There was no explosive termination device. Instead, the flight termination sequence is thrust termination combined with some valves that are opened. That caused the destructive sequence you saw. There are populated areas not too far away. We also have our own property and infrastructure that we're trying to protect. We set a certain bound and if we exceed that bound either laterally or vertically then the flight computer initiates the sequence that occurred.



#405 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 16,032 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 28 August 2014 - 14:10

^ You sure as hell can't say they're as blasé about safety as NASA are!