SpaceX Updates (Thread 8)

[+John. Subscriber¹]

The SES-10 core is on its way to FL now, so that makes 3 cores in that area. Hopefully that means not too long until the ramp up begins!

[DocM]

And that SES-10 core is the CRS-8 core from the first successful ASDS landing.

 

AND, another piece of news that can't be shared yet but is nearly a head exploder.

[anthdci]

1 minute ago, DocM said:

 

AND, another piece of news that can't be shared yet but is nearly a head exploder.

you cant say that and give no hints!

[DocM]

You have no effing idea how much I want to.... 

[+John. Subscriber¹]

2 hours ago, DocM said:

AND, another piece of news that can't be shared yet but is nearly a head exploder.

*shakes fist* 

[philcruicks]

So EchoStar is now after CRS-10

Latest dates are:

Feb 14 - Falcon 9 - CRS 10 (was 8th Feb)

Late Feb - Falcon 9 - EchoStar 23 (possibly 28th Feb, was Jan)

and now March - Falcon 9 - SES 10 (was 22nd Feb)

 

 

 

[+John. Subscriber¹]

1 hour ago, philcruicks said:

So EchoStar is now after CRS-10

Latest dates are:

Feb 14 - Falcon 9 - CRS 10 (was 8th Feb)

Late Feb - Falcon 9 - EchoStar 23 (possibly 28th Feb, was Jan)

and now March - Falcon 9 - SES 10 (was 22nd Feb)

 

 

 

Aye, time are as follows too: 

Feb 14th 2017 16:34 UTC SpX CRS-10

Feb 28th 05:27-07:57 UTC Echostar 23

 

Hopefully SES-10 is daytime too, would love seeing some decent shots of the core coming back (again!)

[DocM]

4 hours ago, philcruicks said:

So EchoStar is now after CRS-10

Latest dates are:

Feb 14 - Falcon 9 - CRS 10 (was 8th Feb)

Late Feb - Falcon 9 - EchoStar 23 (possibly 28th Feb, was Jan)

and now March - Falcon 9 - SES 10 (was 22nd Feb)

Yup. NASA pulled rank. They want Dragon up as soon as the lab mice are old enough, which is the 14th.  SpaceX may well have been able to launch Echostar 23 next week and done a fast turnaround, all the stages and payloads are at the cape, but NASA has its calandar checked.

[DocM]

FCC STA to test Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy at McGregor. The F9's are likely the reused FH boosters with FH specific telemetry hardware.

 

FAA....

 

Operation Start Date: 02/10/2017
Operation End Date: 08/10/2017
>
This STA is required for testing of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicle systems from the SpaceX Rocket Development and Test Facility in McGregor, Texas.

[+John. Subscriber¹]

56 minutes ago, DocM said:

Operation Start Date: 02/10/2017
Operation End Date: 08/10/2017
>
This STA is required for testing of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicle systems from the SpaceX Rocket Development and Test Facility in McGregor, Texas.

If I see another 6 month related timescale for FH I'll flip out  

[DocM]

This time there's hardware to test. The boosters are said to be reflying F9 cores with the optional FH add-ons and cones, and the FH core and the special interstage exist. 

 

 

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

 

Quote

Congressional Investigators Warn of SpaceX Rocket Defects

 

Government Accountability Office’s preliminary findings show persistent cracking of vital propulsion-system components

 

So, who is the Rogozin of the U.S. Space Industry?  

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Quote

The newspaper says the report has found a "pattern of problems" with the turbine blades within the turbopumps, which deliver rocket fuel into the combustion chamber of the Merlin rocket engine. Some of the components used in the turbopumps are prone to cracks, the government investigators say, and may require a redesign before NASA allows the Falcon 9 booster to be used for crewed flights. NASA has been briefed on the report's findings, and the agency's acting administrator, Robert Lightfoot, told the newspaper that he thinks “we know how to fix them.”

 

A spokesman for SpaceX, John Taylor, said the company already has a plan in place to fix the potential cracking issue. "We have qualified our engines to be robust to turbine wheel cracks," Taylor said. "However, we are modifying the design to avoid them altogether. This will be part of the final design iteration on Falcon 9." This final variant of the Falcon 9 booster, named Block 5, is being designed for optimal safety and easier return for potential reuse. According to company founder Elon Musk, it could fly by the end of this year.

 

ArsTechnica

 

Quote

In an email to Reuters, SpaceX said it has "qualified our engines to be robust to turbine wheel cracks. However, we are modifying the design to avoid them altogether,” said spokesman John Taylor.

 

In addition to flying cargo to the International Space Station, SpaceX has NASA contracts to begin flying astronauts to the orbiting research laboratory as early as 2018.

 

"SpaceX has established a plan in partnership with NASA to qualify engines for manned spaceflight," Taylor said.

 

Reuters

Andy Pasztor has written critical articles about SpaceX in the past.

[DocM]

4 hours ago, Mirumir said:

So, who is the Rogozin of the U.S. Space Industry?  

As +jjkusaf said, Andy Pasztor trolls SpaceX on a regular basis. 

 

Microcracking in turbo machinery is not new, and most jet engines have blades with microcracks due to heating and cooling cycles. In a rocket engine shutdowns and then restarting with hot blades and cryogenic propellants are a big factor, such as doing the F9 boostback burn shortly after MECO. The Space Shuttle Main Engines exhibited them too.

 

You design the blades to be tolerant of microcracking, sometimes with shot-peening treatments which help change the surface region to resist microcrack propogation. 

 

NASA and SpaceX have been working on the final fix for F9 Block 5, which is what will fly people and those won't be reused stages.

 

Key points to remember:

 

300+ flown Merlin's, zero pump failures.

 

During Merlins qualification tests, they tossed steel nuts into a running Merlin's pumps and they didn't fail.

 

The JCSat 14 stage has had its engines fired for individual engine qualification, the full 9 for the preflight stage burn, the static fire, launch and recovery, and 8 more mission burns at McGregor with no refurbishment between firings and it's still going. They plan to keep firing it to engine or tank failure.

 

 

[DocM]

Following up....

 

And btw: this issue was first reported months ago, understood fully and is mainly a re-use issue.

 

IMO, as usual wrt SpaceX and other commercial operators Andy P. got hold of an illegally leaked draft copy of the report, made a pretzel of its context and here we are.

 

Andy P. and Loren Thompson at Forbes, who is a paid "consultant" for the major aerospace companies, need to be taken with a large portion of salt when theyre writing about NewSpace.

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-space-spacex-idUKKBN15H307

 

Quote

 

SpaceX says fix underway for rocket turbine wheel cracking

 

By Irene Klotz | CAPE CANAVERAL, FLA. SpaceX's final version of the Falcon 9 rocket, which Elon Musk aims to launch before the end of the year, will fix a potential problem with cracks in its turbopumps, the company said on Thursday. Its statement followed a report that the U.S. Government Accountability Office will flag turbine wheel cracks in the rocket's turbopumps as a safety issue. NASA, the U.S. space agency, and the Air Force are among SpaceX's customers.

 

The GAO’s preliminary findings were reported by the Wall Street Journal on Thursday.

 

In an email to Reuters, SpaceX said it has "qualified our engines to be robust to turbine wheel cracks. However, we are modifying the design to avoid them altogether,” said spokesman John Taylor.

 

In addition to flying cargo to the International Space Station, SpaceX has NASA contracts to begin flying astronauts to the orbiting research laboratory as early as 2018.

 

"SpaceX has established a plan in partnership with NASA to qualify engines for manned spaceflight," Taylor said.

 

GAO investigators found that the Falcon 9 turbopumps, which are part of the system that delivers propellants to the engine, have blades that are prone to cracking, the newspaper said.

 

SpaceX last month resumed flights following a 4-1/2-month investigation into why a rocket blew up as it was being fueled for a routine pre-launch test in Florida.

 

The cause of the accident was traced to a burst canister of helium in the rocket’s second stage liquid oxygen tank. It was unrelated to the issue with the rocket’s turbopumps.

 

The accident was SpaceX's second since the Falcon 9 debuted in June 2010. The company's next launch is targeted for Feb. 14.

 

 

[DocM]

 

 

[Blue-Vision]

That turbopump microcracking issue is something that has happened to every jet and rocket engine ever produced -- EVER. It's not something new. What IS new-ish is the fact that only, only two vehicles have ever, in history, have reused rocket engines -- the Space Shuttle and now the Falcon 9 S1 -- and it's only now becoming an issue, 40 years later?

 

SSME's have had a single failure during flight unrelated to turbopumps. The Merlin-D has not. They've re-fired the recovered S1's a lot and not a single one of them has failed to do its' job. Full-cycle firings too.

 

The "dirt-throwing" is by those favorable to ULA and OldSpace interests. That's all it is. I wouldn't give it much credence ... but SpaceX is going to do the responsible thing anyway because they're SpaceX. They'll eliminate a potential failure point because it's a challenge, and because they don't want something biting them in the ass later on that they could have done something about. It's an abundance of caution, and SpaceX isn't about to be accused of being "negligent".

[Blue-Vision]

And another point -- whoever leaked that confidential GAO/OIG report?? THEY DESERVE THEIR ####### HEAD ON A PLATTER. Inexcusable that a confidential report dell into the hands of someone who isn't even in the INDUSTRY, let alone someone who doesn't have the credentials to handle such material in the first place. Industrial Espionage at minimum, regardless of who it is -- that's not something to be taken lightly. SpaceX should be ###### that it fell into the hands of someone who shouldn't have it.

 

This is another example -- yet another example -- that the "swamp needs draining". I'm someone who knows what the regs were in the early 90's at least -- and this is serious. I don't like this a bit. Leaking classified ANYTHING is a problem. This is meant to be handled internally, through the correct channels and by correct procedures. SpaceX was already notified.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

I would assume that NASA will take this breach of confidence in hand and do a little digging. This activity is not acceptable towards any company..period.

 

Very bad manners....insert +John avatar shaking finger at them....bad...bad bad bad...

[Blue-Vision]

I'm not sure that NASA will be the ones handling this. If it's a GAO leak it'll be handled by them; if it's OIG it'll be their ball. But I suspect that whoever let it out is going to wish they hadn't.

 

Sorry to keep on about this, but it's a very serious matter that I'm particularly sensitive to. /shrug

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Just now, Unobscured Vision said:

I'm not sure that NASA will be the ones handling this. If it's a GAO leak it'll be handled by them; if it's OIG it'll be their ball. But I suspect that whoever let it out is going to wish they hadn't.

 

Sorry to keep on about this, but it's a very serious matter that I'm particularly sensitive to. /shrug

I am not impressed by the leaks as well...no company would be.  This must be addressed.

[Blue-Vision]

Well I'm sure that SpaceX is right p####d about it. They don't like or need any tarnishing of their name by true asshats who are only out to throw dirt on behalf of OldSpace. And if the article is correct (and I assume it is), SpaceX are already working on the fix(es) for the Block-5 variants of the Merlin engines. Who knows -- this might end up working in their favor; some overlooked performance gains that are garnered from a redesigned turbopump would sure justify the hassle.  

 

Silver linings, potentially. They eliminate a failure point and improve the performance at the same time? Winner winner chicken dinner.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Micro fractures are a fact of life with turbines. In fact anything operating at high speeds and temperature extremes. The issue will be dealt with...in the meantime, ask the others launchers to return a stage for inspection......."crickets"

 

One stage has been tested under full duration runs for 8 times, including a launch and return....of course this unit also has micro cracks and is apparently misbehaving because it's still intact.

 

This is an old non story...the news smear and leak are the issue.

[Blue-Vision]

Yep, exactly. A fact of life with these types of engines. The RS-25's had the same problems, same reports, and never a failure with those either.

 

I doubt seriously that we'd ever get the other manufacturers to hold to these standards. This is territory that is really in a space (no pun intended) that few have ventured ... and SpaceX is displaying the sheer robustness of their hardware openly. Their stuff is on the table, and peer review is encouraged. The RS-25's didn't have this level of openness until MUCH later.

 

So yeah.

 

I agree with you, DD. The smear and leak are the real issue here.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Just to give a little context, passenger aircraft will show turbine micro cracks during major inspection every few years. How many passengers will that aircraft have safely delivered. And yes, the reference is a valid one, the time scales are different.

 

I am not stating that it needs to be ignored, the situation is being addressed. The advantage is the modern manufacturing techniques, comprehensive data sets, the likes of which no one else has in this field, and enhanced material science that is available.

 

 

As a side note, do you think that a SpaceX astronaut would have issues going for a ride...they'd laugh and say..."buckle up" it's show time.