SpaceX Updates (Thread 8)

[DocM]

The current NASA shedule is DM-1 (uncrewed) in July 2017 and DM-2 (crewed) in Q4 2017.

 

Boeing's Starliner is at least 6 months behind and may slip again. They really screwed up.

 

NASA is not buying any Soyuz seats for 2019.

 

NASA is talking to Blue Origin about getting their SV vehicle ready for Commercial Crew. A cynic might think this is a hedge against Starliner dropping out.

[FloatingFatMan]

A whole year away? Is that because of NASA being over cautious, or is Dragon 2 just not going to be ready until then?

[DocM]

NASA added requirements to both which slowed them down. Of course Boeing has other issues.

 

Crew Dragon is doing rather well, with the last milestone chart showing the propulsive landing milestone ticked. NASA wants that tested on cago first.

 

The major issue for SpaceX is when to load astronauts. .

 

NASA has always loaded astronauts after rocket fuelling. Downside: no one has protection if the rocket goes kaboomski.

 

SpaceX feels before fuelling is better; if anything goes wrong the astronauts are buttoned up, the SuperDracos primed for a bugout, and the ground crew isn't anywhere near a fueled or fuelling rocket

Edited November 2, 2016 by DocM

[+John. Subscriber¹]

I would hope NASA allow them to do before fuelling, considering what we saw on AMOS-6. I believe Elon said the crew would have been fine in that situation? 

[DocM]

Someone took the pad abort test video and edited it into the AMOS-6 video, timing Dragon 2's takeoff until the explosion had started.  Remember, Dragon 2 is covered in thermal protection materials which are good for re-entry from Mars/Moon velocities  - much hotter than the boomski.

 

Zzzoooommmmmm....

 

 

Edited November 2, 2016 by DocM

[Blue-Vision]

Yes, they would have been fine. "Bugout Mode" would have gotten them away before anything nasty got to them, though they would feel the initial shock of the little boom that started all of the problems -- but it would be equivalent to what they'd feel at a surface landing. AKA stuff that Dragon 2 is designed to deal with anyway.

 

Dragon 2 could be set on fire with those combustibles of the kaboom seen above, and the crew inside would be fine. Those temperatures are far lower than those experienced at reentry. Obviously it's an undesirable situation, but that's what "Bugout Mode" is meant to prevent. Dragon 2 is the safest craft ever built, in any arena. Stick me in there and set it on fire with whatever ya want ... I'll sit back and dink around on Facebook. No worries.  

[DocM]

There's also the Deorbit Now button. For example;

 

Something happens which requires ISS to be evacuated and no pilots survive. Evacuees dive into Dragon, close the hatch, punch Deorbit Now, then Dragon does what comes naturally.

[FloatingFatMan]

7 hours ago, DocM said:

Deorbit Now, then Dragon does what comes naturally.

What, swoop down from the sky, reigning fire and death on the people of Laketown?  (Sorry, I just had to do it...)

[DocM]

Quoting Rupert Pearce of Inmarsat. 

 

Inmarsat 5 F4 is in the queue for Q1 2017

 

http://spacenews.com/inmarsat-juggling-two-launches-says-spacex-to-return-to-flight-in-december/

 

"SpaceX has obviously spent some time investigating the reasons behind their recent launch failure," Inmarsat Chief Executive Rupert Pearce said in a conference call with investors. "We believe they now have found a root cause that is fixable quite easily and quite quickly. So they should be able to return to flight in December."

[DocM]

 

[+John. Subscriber¹]

I'm sure there'll be a recording up of the interview shortly, but: 

 

Elon Musk on CNBC: "It looks like we'll be back launching by mid-December" & "[Amos 6 issue] has never been seen before in the history of rocketry" 

I can't really link exactly to it because it was live-tv, but he had the following to say:

We seem to have figured out what the issue was 

The problem had to do with liquid helium, advanced carbon composites, and solid oxygen.

This has never been seen before in rocketry, so that's why it was hard to figure out

But it looks like we'll be back launching by mid-december

He didn't reference if that would be at 39A or Vandenburg

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/5b4do8/elon_musk_on_cnbc_it_looks_like_well_be_back/

[DocM]

Space News....

 

Quote

 

Musk predicts mid-December return to flight for Falcon 9

 

WASHINGTON  SpaceX Chief Executive Elon Musk said Nov. 4 he expects the Falcon 9 rocket to return to flight in the middle of December after overcoming a problem he claimed was unprecedented in the history of spaceflight.

 

Musk, briefly discussing the status of SpaceX during a half-hour interview on the cable news network CNBC Nov. 4, said that investigators had determined what caused the Sept. 1 pad explosion that destroyed a Falcon 9 and its satellite payload during fueling for a static-fire test.

 

"I think weve gotten to the bottom of the problem," he said. "It was a really surprising problem. It's never been encountered before in the history of rocketry."

 

Musk, confirming earlier discussion about the investigation, said the failure involved liquid helium being loaded into bottles made of carbon composite materials within the liquid oxygen tank in the rockets upper stage. This created solid oxygen, which Musk previously said could have ignited with the carbon composite materials. However, he did not go into that level of detail in his CNBC comments.

 

"Its never happened before in history, so thats why it took us a while to sort it out, Musk said, adding that SpaceX has been working with NASA, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and commercial customers on the accident investigation. This was the toughest puzzle to solve that weve ever had to solve."

 

Musk, though, suggested that the puzzle is now solved and that launches can resume in December. It looks like were going to be back to launching around mid-December, he said. He did not disclose what payload would fly on that return-to-flight mission, or from where the launch would take place.
>

 

 

[Blue-Vision]

Oh my. That's quite an interesting (not to mention unprecedented) failure ... wow. LOX turning solid. Then it makes the CC Bottles an incendiary material (as raw Oxygen is known to do to pretty much everything) ... and kaboom. Sounds like there was some moisture infiltration going on somewhere.

 

That's one of the perils of working with LOX, especially under pressure. Not sure what the solution is, as it's out of my realm of understanding at this point in my education. Really, really dangerous stuff and there's a lot of reasons that Engineers don't like working with it, or having to deal with it.

[DocM]

LOX infiltration is normal. 

 

The cold & empty He tank liner contracts slightly, opening a space between it and the carbon overwrap windings via differential expansion/contraction. LOX infiltrates the space and carbon overwrap windings, then is squeezed out when the tank liner pressurizes and expands again. Like wringing a sponge. No problem.

 

Solid O2 (sO2) doesn't squeeze out, and the pressure of the expanding tank liner into the carbon overwrap windings is all the added energy necessary to make the sO2 and carbon overwrap windings exchange atoms and go BOOM!

 

Definitely a stroll into an undiscovered country.

Edited November 5, 2016 by DocM

[flyingskippy]

Wouldn't filling the liquid helium up first solve the problem  then? Or do they have to figure out a way to prevent SO2 from forming?   

[DocM]

The theory is that flow rates and timing that started the heat loss/engine which chilled the 66°K LOX below its 54.36°K melting point. Solid O2 was the unexpected result. Weird since He has a negative Joule-Thomson coefficient down to 53°K - it warms as it expands.

 

They were testing a new load sequence and, grossly simplifying, happened to hit a magic number where no one expected any numbers at all. Lesson learned, new book chapter.

[SarK0Y]

2 DocM

 

rocketwatcher, in known for you forum, pinpointed issue damnly right -- indeed, why'd there held liquefied He??? my guess is simple: Musk & Co were running an experiment to load a little bit more fuel in the tank. Musk has pushed self in the cursed loop ==>> "reusability" makes dry mass up, then they plays w/ super chilled fuels, then they get into reliability troubles, then rocket falls in the very need to be reconstructed & yet again it runs dry mass mad.

 

P.S. super chilled propellant has been useful only for expendable rockets: because it makes dry mass & dimensions growing, it's useless for reusable schemes.

 

P.P.S. funny to see Musk's absurd about Methane rocket for journey to Mars: LM/LOX tanks need to have damn refrigerator ==>> dry mass & size of that space vehicle shall be bloated insanely.

[Blue-Vision]

Nothing absurd about using Methane. In fact, it's the only way we'll be going to Mars and coming back with people. They need to make their fuel on-site while they are there, and Methane is the easiest way to do that given the Martian environment.

 

No problem that the vehicles are big. More power/space to haul things they need to Mars. It's not a problem.  

[SarK0Y]

3 hours ago, Unobscured Vision said:

No problem that the vehicles are big. More power/space to haul things they need to Mars. It's not a problem.

Mars is completely useless goal ==>> it's relatively far from Sun, has tricky environment & far from Earth as well. Lunar colony has been much more real to orchestrate it within upcoming 30 yrs. Loot at the ISS, it's so close to Earth, but project has plagued that bad.

[Blue-Vision]

Regarding Mars -- that is, of course, your opinion and you're free to express that opinion. Lunar Colonies, sure. Let's do a few of those ... why not?

 

Regarding the ISS, I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's been "plagued with problems". In fact, I'd venture to say it's been a resounding success; bridging the divide between, and sparking the evolution (and revolution) of monolithic Government Space Programs and Commercial Space ventures both, performing incredible science and research that could not be done anywhere else, and is serving as a test bed for new technologies. And it's not done yet. It has created tens of thousands of jobs worldwide, and led to the creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs in other areas of the Aerospace Industry, inspired countless people to pursue careers in the Sciences and Technology sectors all over the world -- and has directly led to the current interest in Space Exploration. I wouldn't call that any kind of failure. It's one of Humanity's greatest achievements.

 

 

[SarK0Y]

5 minutes ago, Unobscured Vision said:

Regarding the ISS, I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's been "plagued with problems"

just read what was supposed to be & compare it w/ what has been. For now, Cosmonautics cannot be just for curiosity's sake, it must chase only damn practical reasons. In our time, Water becomes too expensive to maintain state-of-the-art industry ==>> upcoming reality barely will meet capabilities even for cars.

[Blue-Vision]

2 minutes ago, SarK0Y said:

just read what was supposed to be & compare it w/ what has been. For now, Cosmonautics cannot be just for curiosity's sake, it must chase only damn practical reasons. In our time, Water becomes too expensive to maintain state-of-the-art industry ==>> upcoming reality barely will meet capabilities even for cars.

Then Water needs to be made not expensive. There are new discoveries in Science that will render that problem (and more) completely non-issues very shortly -- and the reason these discoveries were even made was thanks to Research and (now in-progress) Development at agencies like Roscosmos, NASA, ESA, CNSA, JAXA and all the Universities and Corporations around the world who are working on these new ideas.

 

You'll like this, @SarK0Y -- Russia's new Federation spacecraft will use some of these new technologies. So will the new Angara rockets. And all of us, around the world, will be cheering you folks in Russia on. It's all on the up-and-up. Budgets have been scaled back everywhere, and it's unfortunate that the ISS didn't get all of the things it was meant to. Perhaps Mir-2 will fulfill those aspirations.

[SarK0Y]

7 hours ago, Unobscured Vision said:

Then Water needs to be made not expensive. There are new discoveries in Science that will render that problem (and more) completely non-issues very shortly -- and the reason these discoveries were even made was thanks to Research and (now in-progress) Development at agencies like Roscosmos, NASA, ESA, CNSA, JAXA and all the Universities and Corporations around the world who are working on these new ideas.

 

You'll like this, @SarK0Y -- Russia's new Federation spacecraft will use some of these new technologies. So will the new Angara rockets. And all of us, around the world, will be cheering you folks in Russia on. It's all on the up-and-up. Budgets have been scaled back everywhere, and it's unfortunate that the ISS didn't get all of the things it was meant to. Perhaps Mir-2 will fulfill those aspirations.

i'd like to share your optimism. But i always have lived the simple Principle ==>> be ready for the Worst & keep Hopes for the Best.

 

P.S.  my Cheers to you, Linux Comrade. windows & m$ as well must die :)))

[FloatingFatMan]

Oh fun, the <snip> is back...

 

[DocM]

FYI, Paragon SDC has won the NASA contract for a new water recovery system on ISS. They developed the Commercial Crew ECLSS used in Starliner and Dragon 2 and have a long history with NASA, Boeing, SpaceX and ISS. 

 

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-contract-to-increase-water-recovery-on-space-station

 

http://www.paragonsdc.com/paragon-iwp/

 

NASA has awarded Paragon with a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Phase III contract for the patented Ionomer-membrane Water Processor (IWP) System. IWP will provide the platform for up to 98% water recovery in future deep space exploration missions with its initial application planned for installment on the International Space Station (ISS).