Jump to content
Posted 29 July 2014 - 12:40
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.
Posted 29 July 2014 - 19:33
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.
Posted 29 July 2014 - 22:50
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????????
Posted 01 August 2014 - 01:48
Posted 01 August 2014 - 08:25
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.
Posted 06 August 2014 - 10:13
@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
Posted 19 August 2014 - 16:20
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.
Posted 19 August 2014 - 16:32
Posted 28 August 2014 - 07:06
Posted 28 August 2014 - 13:59
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.
Posted 28 August 2014 - 14:10
^ You sure as hell can't say they're as blasé about safety as NASA are!