Recommended Posts

If that is the case then  yeah I would expect bad things to happen.

 

FAA certification only goes to 150% .I know the FAA doesn't have jurisdiction here, but is NASA requiring 200%?  Is this for that ###### LOC rate they require? 

 

4 hours ago, Skiver said:

Still no news on this? I'm so used to SpaceX's quick and open explanations on some of the "failures" they've had in the past, the lack of information on this makes it feel worse than it probably is.

Government is involved.  Could be why it's taking longer?

SpaceX's Hans Koenigsmann re: Crew Dragon test failure. Sounds like plumbing.

Powered up nominally.

Completed 2 Draco thruster firings, 5 seconds each. 

Just before the SDs fired there was an anomaly which destroyed the vehicle.

Indications this happened while the SDs were "activating". Too soon to speculate about root cause.

COPVs are not pressurized during SD activation

Confidence in SDs - 600 tests including integrated;  pad abort and hovers.

Large amount of data; high speed film, sensors and telemetry. 

 

Video does not include the Q&A

 

Edited by DocM
9 hours ago, Skiver said:

Still no news on this? I'm so used to SpaceX's quick and open explanations on some of the "failures" they've had in the past, the lack of information on this makes it feel worse than it probably is.

Well....when the Falcon blew up on the launch pad it took about three weeks before a lengthy statement (aside from ones apologizing for loss of the AMOS-6) and preliminary speculation on the cause.  About 4 months before everything was done...with updates about every month.

 

I wouldn't read too much into them not giving out information at this point.  

 

Just hoping it isn't a design flaw...but we'll know eventually.

  • Like 2

From the above article...

Quote

///

In the company's most expansive comments to date, Koenigsmann said the "anomaly" occurred during a series of tests with the spacecraft, approximately one-half second before the firing of the SuperDraco thrusters. At that point, he said, "There was an anomaly and the vehicle was destroyed."

 

During the activation phase, the SuperDraco thruster system is pressurized, and valves are opened and closed. Since the accident there has been speculation that there may have been some issue with the composite overwrap pressure vessels, or COPVs, which store rocket fuels at extremely high pressures. The COPVs on Crew Dragon are different from those on the Falcon 9, and they would not have been overly stressed at that moment, Koenigsmann said. "I'm fairly confident that the COPVs are going to be fine," he said.

///

He also went on to say that  "We have no reason to believe there’s an issue with the SuperDracos themselves,"

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

WRT the Crew Dragon explosion

 

https://twitter.com/SpaceflightIns/status/1150825006663897088

 

SpaceFlight Insider @SpaceflightIns
SpaceX has a teleconference set for later today. Most agencies / companies give a couple days notice @SpaceX gave less than 3 hours. Topic is explosion of their @CommercialCrew offering @CrewDragon2

 

SpaceX press release

 


On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 18:13 UTC, SpaceX conducted a series of static fire engine tests of the Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort test vehicle on a test stand at SpaceXs Landing Zone 1, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.

Crew Dragons design includes two distinct propulsion systems  a low-pressure bi-propellant propulsion system with sixteen Draco thrusters for on-orbit maneuvering, and a high-pressure bi-propellant propulsion system with eight SuperDraco thrusters for use only in the event of a launch escape. After the vehicles successful demonstration mission to and from the International Space Station in March 2019, SpaceX performed additional tests of the vehicles propulsion systems to ensure functionality and detect any system-level issues prior to a planned In-Flight Abort test.

The initial tests of twelve Draco thrusters on the vehicle completed successfully, but the initiation of the final test of eight SuperDraco thrusters resulted in destruction of the vehicle. In accordance with pre-established safety protocols, the test area was clear and the team monitored winds and other factors to ensure public health and safety.

Following the anomaly, SpaceX convened an Accident Investigation Team that included officials from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and observers from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and began the systematic work on a comprehensive fault tree to determine probable cause. SpaceX also worked closely with the U.S. Air Force (USAF) to secure the test site, and collect and clean debris as part of the investigation. The site was operational prior to SpaceXs Falcon Heavy launch of STP-2 and landing of two first stage side boosters at Landing Zones 1 and 2 on June 25, 2019.

Initial data reviews indicated that the anomaly occurred approximately 100 milliseconds prior to ignition of Crew Dragons eight SuperDraco thrusters and during pressurization of the vehicles propulsion systems. Evidence shows that a leaking component allowed liquid oxidizer  nitrogen tetroxide (NTO) to enter high-pressure helium tubes during ground processing. A slug of this NTO was driven through a helium check valve at high speed during rapid initialization of the launch escape system, resulting in structural failure within the check valve. The failure of the titanium component in a high-pressure NTO environment was sufficient to cause ignition of the check valve and led to an explosion.

In order to understand the exact scenario, and characterize the flammability of the check valves titanium internal components and NTO, as well as other material used within the system, the accident investigation team performed a series of tests at SpaceXs rocket development facility in McGregor, Texas. Debris collected from the test site in Florida, which identified burning within the check valve, informed the tests in Texas. Additionally, the SuperDraco thrusters recovered from the test site remained intact, underscoring their reliability.

It is worth noting that the reaction between titanium and NTO at high pressure was not expected. Titanium has been used safely over many decades and on many spacecraft from all around the world. Even so, the static fire test and anomaly provided a wealth of data. Lessons learned from the test  and others in our comprehensive test campaign  will lead to further improvements in the safety and reliability of SpaceXs flight vehicles.

SpaceX has already initiated several actions, such as eliminating any flow path within the launch escape system for liquid propellant to enter the gaseous pressurization system. Instead of check valves, which typically allow liquid to flow in only one direction, burst disks, which seal completely until opened by high pressure, will mitigate the risk entirely. Thorough testing and analysis of these mitigations has already begun in close coordination with NASA, and will be completed well in advance of future flights.

With multiple Crew Dragon vehicles in various stages of production and testing, SpaceX has shifted the spacecraft assignments forward to stay on track for Commercial Crew Program flights. The Crew Dragon spacecraft originally assigned to SpaceXs second demonstration mission to the International Space Station (Demo-2) will carry out the companys In-Flight Abort test, and the spacecraft originally assigned to the first operational mission (Crew-1) will launch as part of Demo-2.

  • Like 2

This is why testing happens. :yes: It'll be a far safer vehicle with this new change.

 

Apollo used the "burst disk" methodology as a safety feature too on its' engines. ALL of them. I'm surprised that SpaceX hadn't employed them also; but hey -- experience becomes the best teacher and this kind of thing won't be overlooked in the future.

 

Better that this happened now rather than later. (Y) 

  • Like 3

Yep, saw this.

 

Crew Dragon does have the capability to land anywhere, but of course won't be allowed to land anywhere but water unless it's an emergency. Frankly I think ocean landings are "old school" and need to be rethought. Big waste of resources for recovery not to mention refurbishing the spacecraft (considering how much havoc seawater causes).

 

Seriously, set up a 50 x 200 mile touchdown area in the Western or Southern U.S. (or both) designated as a Recovery Area so that Commercial Crew spacecraft can land on land. I've disliked the idea that we must use the ocean since I've been a kid following space stuff. No, really -- Crew Dragon especially; those four parachutes are overkill. Touching down on land is gonna be easy peasy. Scuff the heat shield up a bit ... so what. Better than seawater.

 

/shrug

16 minutes ago, Unobscured Vision said:

Yep, saw this.

 

Crew Dragon does have the capability to land anywhere, but of course won't be allowed to land anywhere but water unless it's an emergency. Frankly I think ocean landings are "old school" and need to be rethought. Big waste of resources for recovery not to mention refurbishing the spacecraft (considering how much havoc seawater causes).

 

Seriously, set up a 50 x 200 mile touchdown area in the Western or Southern U.S. (or both) designated as a Recovery Area so that Commercial Crew spacecraft can land on land. I've disliked the idea that we must use the ocean since I've been a kid following space stuff. No, really -- Crew Dragon especially; those four parachutes are overkill. Touching down on land is gonna be easy peasy. Scuff the heat shield up a bit ... so what. Better than seawater.

 

/shrug

Boeing agrees that seawater is no good for their Starliner capsule, there are better ways to get them down :) 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner

9 hours ago, Steven P. said:

Boeing agrees that seawater is no good for their Starliner capsule, there are better ways to get them down :) 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CST-100_Starliner

 

Assuming the heat shield separates so the bags can inflate. If not, things get bumpy.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

The Crew Dragon In-Flight Abort test FCC permit is in.

 

Pad LC-39A

Simulated second stage

 

The start date further indicates the Starship pad mods should be done by then.

 

Start date: November 23, 2019
End date: May 23, 2020

 

Quote


Please explain in the area below why an STA is necessary:

This application uses information from previous grant, 1829-EX-ST-2019. This STA is necessary to authorize launch vehicle communications for SpaceX Mission 1357, a launch from Complex 39a, Kennedy Space Center. The application includes a sub-orbital first stage, and a simulated orbital second stage. Trajectory data shall be provided directly to NTIA, USAF, and NASA. All downrange Earth stations are receive-only. Launch licensing authority is FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation.

  • 2 weeks later...

SpaceX now has TWO vessels capable of recovering Crew Dragon; GO Searcher and GO Navigator. 

 

And in a rather ambiguous tweet Musk simply said "A Shortfall Of Gravitas." Will it still be a droneship? "Yes" 

 

Starship capable? We'll see.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
On 10/9/2019 at 2:08 PM, DocM said:

SpaceX now has TWO vessels capable of recovering Crew Dragon; GO Searcher and GO Navigator. 

 

And in a rather ambiguous tweet Musk simply said "A Shortfall Of Gravitas." Will it still be a droneship? "Yes" 

 

Starship capable? We'll see.

 

 

 

 

 

What do you mean by "Starship capable"?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!