Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, DocM said:

Since a joint SpaceX-NASA fix for the microcracking is said to be on the Block 5 vehicle, and only new cores will be used for astronaut rides, I doubt they'll need to be concerned.

True, and quite frankly, they don't need to be concerned with the block 3's. This sideshow has just forced NASA to "cover themselves just in case", which they are properly obliged to do.

 

:)

  • Like 1

Agree with all on this. Block-5 Falcon 9's are the ones being used for Crewed Dragon 2's, so there's going to only be "buckle up"'s and "yeehaa"'s all the way uphill. :yes:

 

And then SpaceX can focus on BFR/BFS (whatever they end up changing the name to -- because "ITS" isn't a very good name, per Elon, and they want to change it).

  • Like 1
11 minutes ago, Unobscured Vision said:

Agree with all on this. Block-5 Falcon 9's are the ones being used for Crewed Dragon 2's, so there's going to only be "buckle up"'s and "yeehaa"'s all the way uphill. :yes:

 

And then SpaceX can focus on BFR/BFS (whatever they end up changing the name to -- because "ITS" isn't a very good name, per Elon, and they want to change it).

I kind of like ITS for acronyms...It's The Show!....Incredible Tall Spaceship...It's The Solution....If Terrified,Scream....:woot:

  • Like 1

A lot has happened since the last time I was on here. 

DocM could you give us any hints on how far away this big news is that you are teasing? 

Not sure if this has been discussed before, but do we have any idea what they learned from inspecting the landed cores, if they had any challenges refurbishing them or test firing them? Also with Block 5, what does easier to reuse mean?

16 hours ago, Draggendrop said:

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

Couldn't agree more!

 

I've heard SpaceX has finished the prelims for their spacesuit testing. Did I dream that or was it actually reported? Also, I assume it'll be an IVA? 

 

I'm thinking it'll be a bit like: 

tron.jpg

  • Like 3
8 hours ago, PaulRocket said:

A lot has happened since the last time I was on here. 

DocM could you give us any hints on how far away this big news is that you are teasing? 

Can't. Maybe soon.

 

Quote

Not sure if this has been discussed before, but do we have any idea what they learned from inspecting the landed cores, if they had any challenges refurbishing them or test firing them? Also with Block 5, what does easier to reuse mean?

We've learned the JCSAT-14 core has endured no less than 8 successful unrefurbished (but cleaned) burns on the test stand, with a mass simulator the mass of an upper stage and satellite on top,  which says a helluva lot about Block 3. They'll probably keep putting it up until it fails.

 

Block 5 has a ton of upgrades including new landing legs, many reusability upgrades, helium system and COPV changes, yet another thrust boost (!), and even before Block 5 a test of recoverable fairing halves.

 

That's right kiddies, fairing halves which have a reaction control system and parafoils which can fly them to a sea landing for retrieval and reuse. 

 

Landed JCSAT 14 state test a few months ago. The T shaped yellow object with guy wires is the mass simulator. It just keeps on tickin'. It was tested again last month.

 

 

Edited by DocM
  • Like 2
21 hours ago, DocM said:

Can't. Maybe soon.

 

We've learned the JCSAT-14 core has endured no less than 8 successful unrefurbished (but cleaned) burns on the test stand, with a mass simulator the mass of an upper stage and satellite on top,  which says a helluva lot about Block 3. They'll probably keep putting it up until it fails.

 

Block 5 has a ton of upgrades including new landing legs, many reusability upgrades, helium system and COPV changes, yet another thrust boost (!), and even before Block 5 a test of recoverable fairing halves.

 

That's right kiddies, fairing halves which have a reaction control system and parafoils which can fly them to a sea landing for retrieval and reuse. 

 

Landed JCSAT 14 state test a few months ago. The T shaped yellow object with guy wires is the mass simulator. It just keeps on tickin'. It was tested again last month.

 

 

Interesting, definitely excited about the news without knowing what its about. 

Does cleaned mean just the engines? Would love to see what these babies look like when their cleaned. 

 

What are reusability upgrades? Things like easier swap ability of components like the engines and the cork heat shield? 

Really looking forward to the first reflight with SES-10.

  • Like 1

AFIK they've been cleaning off the engines and the inside of the Octaweb (engine bay/mount.) Likely replace eroded thermal protections. The core itself stays dirty.

 

Reusability upgrades include upgrading the thermal protection coatings in and outside of the engine bays - like replacing the cork with something tougher, replacing the thermal shield blankets around the upper nozzles with something more durable, further hardening of the helium system and COPV's, replacing the turbine design to eliminate microcracks,  .. a general toughening up.

 

Engines before cleaning. The white deposits are a residue from the TEA-TEB ignition fluids used to restart the boostback, re-ntry & landing engines (center, 6 and 12 o'clock.) You see it more on the external ring engines as the center engine burns longer and cooks the deposits off.

 

24175842635_c0d63a05bb_k.jpg

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

 

 

From the last batch, 5 in higher orbit, 1 in transfer, 4 in original placement. Every 2 to 3 days, one is being moved up. Still in the process between Iridium and it's insurer. Once the insurer is happy with functionality...away we go.

 

:)

  • Like 1
6 minutes ago, Unobscured Vision said:

They seem happy with their delivery. :yes: 

When the insurers are happy after this, and the next launch placement in approx April, they may go to 45 days between launches....hope so.

  • Like 1

Vandenberg still has to get their autonomous flight termination gear programmed now that Falcon 9 uses it. Should be wrapping up.

 

The base has been working on a major redoing since last summer; moved their buildings, new hardware and infrastructure etc. to support commercial operators. 

  • Like 1

I'm not so sure about automating the approval process though. Should still be humans in the loop -- sometimes there will be logistics going on that a department will be able to handle better than automation. For example, equipment arriving in the port that will cross through the no-go zones, or even visiting military vessels that are passing through. Don't need an incident.

 

Although I do agree that the approval process needs retooling and a serious overhaul to eliminate the bureaucracy (and thus save time), I think it could (and should) still have people there. :) 

On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 4:53 PM, DocM said:

Landed JCSAT 14 state test a few months ago. The T shaped yellow object with guy wires is the mass simulator. It just keeps on tickin'. It was tested again last month.

What's the point of the mass simulator if it's being held down?

2 minutes ago, DocM said:

To simulate the mass loads on the first stage and interstage during a launch; upper stage, payload, fairing etc. 

Sorry.  I'm not sure I understand yet.

 

You put a car up on jacks and hit the gas, it's not going anywhere no matter how much mass is in the vehicle.  I'm just comparing that to a rocket that you clamp down, it's not going any where.  I don't understand why the mass loads matter (unless it's for vibrations or something like that).  I know a car and a rocket are very different, just an easy way to ask my question I think.

It's also to help weigh the rocket down. Those guide wires, by themselves, and the clamps used at the bottom of the stage, are quite stressed during static firings and the mass simulators allow SpaceX to crank up the throttle without the rocket getting away from them. It's for safety, first and foremost.

  • Like 1

The vertical and vibratory loads of an integrated rocket vehicle vs those of a bare lower stage are very different from a car racing it's engine on blocks.

 

In addition to safety, Falcon 9 doesn't use a separate chassis with tanks inside, it's a monocoque - the stressed skin IS the tank and the loads on top cause it to behave differently during the burn. There are accelerometers all over that stage measuring every vibration, deformation etc. looking for a variance outside of the allowed ranges.

  • Like 2
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!