Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, DocM said:

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/

 

 

 

 

 

I went to the "Mars Live Experience" last night and Jason Crusan was talking about this being tested on the ISS for future deployment on Mars. 

SpaceX timeline.

 

FH and F9 development end in about 16 months with Block 5. ITS spaceship testing starts in Q3-Q4 2018.  Booster testing in mid-2019, orbital tests in 2020.

 

From the final ITS presentation pdf.

 

ITS-Timeline-1280.jpg

 

 

  • Like 3

Well, there we have it folks! Red Dragon can start in Feb. 2018, ITS can start flying in August-September 2022. :D That's what I'm lining up the beginning of the lines with. Matches up with launch windows nicely.

probability of next explosion is very high -- Musk et Co must stop gambling on deeply cryogenic propellants ==>> DCP needs the brand new EXPENDABLE rocket. DCP is extremely tricky Beast:

 

1. fuel easily goes 3-stated at once  (it's partially solid, partially liquid & partially gaseous) + fluctuates through that states.

2. material becomes fragile.

3. very limited time to keep fuel stable.

4. chemical surprise (like cool fire) can takeover at any Place, at any Time. 

=====================

Don't gamble with that Beast ==>> There never has mercy. :)

Better tell that to Russia since sub-chilled LOX is required on the Russian engined Antares and Soyuz 2-1v.

 

Sub-chilled LOX at 66°K is liquid, not partially solid (54.6°K) and certainly not partially gas because it's well below its 90.188°K boiling point.

 

Something abnormal in the prop and He loads chilled the LOX enough to solidify it (likely γ-phase) inside the COPV overwrap winding, nowhere else. This has been reproduced, with a loud bang, so preventing it from happening again shouldn't be an issue. 

Edited by DocM
17 hours ago, DocM said:

Better tell that to Russia since sub-chilled LOX is required on the Russian engined Antares and Soyuz 2-1v.

 

Sub-chilled LOX at 66°K is liquid, not partially solid (54.6°K) and certainly not partially gas because it's well below its 90.188°K boiling point.

i think they have followed only well-proven process -- if No, Musk-like stories (Boom, baby, Boom) shall become their fate too.

17 hours ago, DocM said:

certainly not partially gas because it's well below its 90.188°K boiling point.

gaseous state may instantly appear in some locations. solid state in a classical form doesn't exist within the over-chilled medium -- super electrical conductivity + other quantum odds make a material transparent for super cooled Atoms/Molecules.

Quote

SpaceX chief Elon Musk called the problem surprising and said it had never been encountered in the history of rocketry.

But it's not completely unexpected. A panel of highly respected aerospace experts told NASA eight months before the accident that the lack of a re-circulation pump aboard the Falcon rocket could be a safety problem.

RELATED: Dramatic Video Shows Moment of SpaceX Explosion

"We are concerned that there may be insufficient pre-cooling of the tank and plumbing with (SpaceX's) current planned oxidizer fill scenario," former astronaut Thomas Stafford and members of the International Space Station Advisory Committee wrote in a December 2015 letter to NASA.

The letter was released on Friday.

"Without re-circulation there may be stratification of oxidizer temperature that will cause a variation in the input conditions to the oxidizer pump," the letter said.

NASA's space shuttles, for example, used a re-circulation system and pressure lines to help keep liquid oxygen temperatures consistent, Mike Leinbach, former shuttle launch director, told Seeker.

"That's key," said Leinbach.

NASA also has a bit of history with liquid oxygen behaving badly with a composite fuel tank, which was developed as part of the experimental X-33 spaceship in the 1990s.

RELATED: SpaceX Rocket, Israeli Satellite Destroyed

"The composite tank experienced cracks when fueled in development tests. Composite was used to save weight. Never could overcome it technically, and contributed a lot to the program demise," Leinbach wrote in an email.

http://www.seeker.com/spacex-elon-musk-falcon-rocket-explosion-launch-pad-accident-2083614822.html

 

In all fairness we'll call this lesson learned. SpaceX will adapt, and the data gathered on this mishap can be used to prevent occurrences like this one in the future; be it Russia or anyone else. Better that it happen before these rockets have Crews on top of them -- in any Space Program. Don't want any loss of life, injury, or setbacks over something that could have been prevented. (Y) 

 

This is another example of how difficult Space is. 

And LOX stratification in a full tank over time wasn't the issue. The tank was only part full. 

 

As to prop and crew loading...

 

1) you load crew first. The rocket is empty so both the flight crew and ground crew are safe. During fueling the flight crew is buttoned up in a capsule surrounded by thermal protection materials, which is also equipped with a powerful launch escape system looking for an excuse to bug out.

 

It would have easily outrun the AMOS-6 event, as fast an event as one can imagime.

 

2) you fuel first, and expose both the flight crew and ground crew to a rocket filled with 500t of propellants looking for an excuse to go boom. If anything goes wrong both crews are SOL; the launch escape system can't fire and the NASA required zip lines are a joke. Puh-lease. Call the coroner.

 

I'll take door #1.

 

How the NAC avoids common sense sometimes amazes me.

 

 

Edited by DocM
  • Like 1
38 minutes ago, DocM said:

As to prop and crew loading...

much better to use Soyuz-like scheme w/ no DCP as well. other schemes could be adopted to crew vehicle, if they have showed due success rate in cargo flights.

 

46 minutes ago, DocM said:

1) you load crew first. The rocket is empty so both the flight crew and ground crew are safe. During fueling the flight crew is buttoned up in a capsule surrounded by thermal protection materials, which is also equipped with a powerful launch escape system looking for an excuse to bug out.

i've had some doubts about escape system of Dragon ==>> engines of capsule must be as far from 2nd stage as possible, otherwise rocket explosion could affect them.

5 minutes ago, SarK0Y said:

second moment, solid boosters work faster, it's better for escape tower.

Why, when the Dragon 2's propulsion system, at full power, can do the same job at the same response time and speed with less weight? No need for an escape tower that potentially can strike the spacecraft (not to mention add additional weight)?

 

Nah, we like the SuperDraco engines. A lot. :yes: 

  • Like 2
43 minutes ago, Unobscured Vision said:

Why, when the Dragon 2's propulsion system, at full power

perhaps theoretically, practically Musk's "optimizations" have proven self unsafe. i remember how Musk's supporters were blackmailing Shuttle. But in practice Shuttle was more reliable/safe & even more cheap as well.

1 hour ago, SarK0Y said:

much better to use Soyuz-like scheme w/ no DCP as well. other schemes could be adopted to crew vehicle, if they have showed due success rate in cargo flights.

Guess you missed the part about other launchers using chilled LOX. If Shuttle had continued it's quite likely it too would have used sub-chilled propellants, NASA was exploring it and saw no deal breakers, and the required pumps are commercially available. In short, quit the FUD.

 

Quote

 

i've had some doubts about escape system of Dragon ==>> engines of capsule must be as far from 2nd stage as possible, otherwise rocket explosion could affect them.

Dragon 2 pad abort test overlaid on AMOS-6 explosion, timed so the SuperDraco ignition happens after the event started. FYI, the SuperDracos reach 100% throttle in 90-100 milliseconds.

 

 

5 minutes ago, DocM said:

Guess you missed the part about other launchers using chilled LOX. If Shuttle had continued it's quite likely it too would have used sub-chilled propellants, NASA was exploring it and saw no deal breakers, and the required pumps are commercially available. In short, quit the FUD.

Yes, it'd be used WELL-PROVEN PROCESS & RD180-like engines for its boosters :rolleyes:

 

10 minutes ago, DocM said:

the SuperDracos reach 100% throttle in 90-100 milliseconds

your pic just shows how engines of Dragon could be affected by such explosion -- normal escape tower stays safe at any scenario.

Guess you missed the part about RD-180 not being used for govt launches after Vulcan flies. Atlas V then needs to be commercially viable, which it will have a problem doing - too many NON-Russian engined options. 

 

The SuperDraco nozzles are covered by pop-off panels before they fire, and so are protected. After they fire their exhaust velocity is fast and voluminous enough to handle thrusting during a hypersonic re-entry for landing on Mars, so a piddling subsonic fireball is nothing. Try harder.

Just a heads up guys, we can't use the "troll" word without getting a warning.

 

We must agree to disagree and move on with our usual thorough science.

 

You guys are smart and know what to do.

 

Thanks much.    :s

14 minutes ago, DocM said:

I could get very creative quoting that first line DD, but I'll restrain myself.

I'm having one of those days where I feel like a bag of hammers, shouldn't be near a keyboard.....:s

5 hours ago, DocM said:

Guess you missed the part about RD-180 not being used for govt launches after Vulcan flies. Atlas V then needs to be commercially viable, which it will have a problem doing - too many NON-Russian engined options. 

vulcan.png

planned:rofl: i'd like to share you some inside -- this rocket will go nowhere or will have RD yet again :) well, mid-12.16?:)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      579
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      74
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!