Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, philcruicks said:

CRS 10 has slipped again to:

18th Feb 1501 GMT (10:01 a.m. EST)

Even better! 

 

52 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

I love me some Sat/Sun launches...especially the morning ones.  Eat some pancakes, drink some coffee and watch a controlled explosion.

Amen! 1501UTC is a great time for a beer, some chips and a lovely bright Landing.

Especially when it'll be the first daylight landing at LZ-1. :yes: Worthy of tailgate parties and grills ... I know I'd rather tailgate one of these than football or [barf.suppression=1] Nascar. It'll be "full glory" mode this time.

  • Like 2

So long ago already, seems a bit unreal when you let that sink in :)

 

Also still remember everything from the COTS-2 demo mission as if it only happened just recently. Especially since Dutch astro Andre Kuipers was part of the capture team that very first time around :)

  • Like 2

My understanding is they want LC-40 back up and running by June or July. I'm expecting August or September, there's a lot of GSE that got trashed in the mishap that they want to upgrade (since they're doing work there anyway).

A bit OT, but what the hey 

 

http://www.teslarati.com/craft-brewery-opens-spacexs-backyard-creates-beer-employees/

 

Quote

 

When their shifts are over, SpaceX employees in Hawthorne, CA only have to walk a short way to their favorite new hangout: Los Angeles Ale Works. The soft opening of the area’s first craft brewery a couple of weeks ago has allowed SpaceX employees to personally sample a variety of what will be the house signatures brews — two-dozen taps pouring a wide variety of styles of small batch beer. Starting Thursday, when the grand opening will take place, crowds will descend upon the former industrial building and Hawthorne’s first brewery and tasting room. For now, a bunch of the SpaceX employees and locals have been savoring Los Angeles Ale Works’ inviting space.

 

Los Angeles Ale Works already serves two varieties named after SpaceX: a low-alcohol session India Pale Ale named Space XPA and a Space XPA Full Thrust double IPA.

 

 

SpaceX-beer-Hawthorne-Aleworks.jpg

  • Like 2

After all the handwriting by Andy Pasztor in WSJ, the GAO report on SpaceX  turbopump cracks is out.

 

For SpaceX the risks are getting enough Block 5 flights in before certification and the turbopump now non-issue  

 

Quote

During qualification testing in 2015, SpaceX identified cracks in the turbines of its engine. Additional cracks were later identified. Program officials told us that they have informed SpaceX that the cracks are an unacceptable risk for human spaceflight. SpaceX officials told us that they are working closely with NASA to eliminate these cracks in order to meet NASA’s stringent targets for human rating. Specifically, SpaceX has made design changes that, according to its officials, did not result in any cracking during initial life testing.

  • Like 2

I smell a deliberate stalling attempt here. Not once has a SpaceX Falcon-9 engine failed during launch. This is, at most, an issue of reuse -- which SpaceX have already said they wouldn't reuse for anything that would be flying people on-board, NASA regulations aside -- and those S1's would follow a recertification process before being flown again.

 

SpaceX have addressed the issue and they appear to have corrected it, however slight that issue was. They're SpaceX -- nothing left to chance. But what it says to my mind is that whomever initiated this whole fiasco (let's call it what it is) was acting on the interests of others. They had to be. There's no other explanation for anyone to be digging around inside the reports like this and making such a huge deal out of it when it was already being dealt with internally. Only someone who knew what they were looking for could find reports like this -- and since the Merlin designs are available for scrutiny, all it takes is a couple of Engineers who are familiar with such problems to point out design shortcomings. And turbopump cracking is an easy one. That's happened to just about every Jet and Rocket engine that uses turboprops or turbopumps. Same basic idea behind turbocharged anything, really.

 

When we look at who would benefit from such a delay and the time it takes in addressing the turbopump cracking "issue" -- something that never was made an issue during the Shuttle Program -- the usual players are right there, playing in their sandbox trying to look innocent.

 

I think someone in OldSpace initiated this fiasco as a way to stall for time. SpaceX have been making too many leaps in too short a time and OldSpace is getting stressed out about their inabilities to meet milestones or even get their gear to work properly.

 

And anyone who has ever had to deal with Mil/Gov Contractors knows how absolutely dirty they can be if they've been backed into a corner and are on a deadline. I've seen VP's shout down Majors before. Absolutely vicious ... ehh .. "people". They're used to getting their way and will go to some pretty extraordinary ends to do it.

 

Of course there will never be any "fessing up" about Industrial Harassment or anything. It's not illegal to harass your competitor -- regardless of it being generally bad behavior, and unprofessional as hell -- but more and more I get the sense that OldSpace just can't keep up, and will start resorting to tactics like these more often just to level the playing field unless some sort of "business arrangement" is made.

 

Like ULA and Orbital-ATK did. Talk about having cake and eating it .... yeeesh. That's a whole other subject.

There was one launch that did have an engine failure. It was one of the early Falcon 9 missions and the mission overall was successful even with the 1/9 failure. I can't remember which one but will try to look it up.

 

Edit: It was CRS-1

 

Having said that, I agree with everything you said. I think there is a level of "well that's just business" especially when there are billions of dollars at stake but it is still pretty sad that the industry as a whole pretty much stopped innovating in the 70s until SpaceX came along.

  • Like 1
7 minutes ago, rdlenk said:

There was one launch that did have an engine failure. It was one of the early Falcon 9 missions and the mission overall was successful even with the 1/9 failure. I can't remember which one but will try to look it up.

 

Edit: It was CRS-1

 

Having said that, I agree with everything you said. I think there is a level of "well that's just business" especially when there are billions of dollars at stake but it is still pretty sad that the industry as a whole pretty much stopped innovating in the 70s until SpaceX came along.

Yep... One engine failure... but it wasn't the turbo pump iirc, but a material defect in the chamber.  Cool thing about that failure is it didn't lead to RUD. :)

  • Like 1
16 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

Yep... One engine failure... but it wasn't the turbo pump iirc, but a material defect in the chamber.  Cool thing about that failure is it didn't lead to RUD. :)

If anything it showed that the rocket would be fine if one/some did fail, and that the engine could power out without destroying itself

  • Like 2

CRS-1 was a partial failure as its secondary cargo (Orbcomm-2) had to be released early to meet ISS safety regulations and burned up in the atmosphere. Overall it did show the F9 to be very robust and demonstrated its engine-out capability. The secondary payload was only lost because of an abundance of cation (fully deserved when dealing with human life) for objects that might potentially get close to the ISS orbit. Orbcomm knew about this regulation and that it increased the chance of losing their payload but the agreed to it because they got a discount on launch fees. 

 

I brought this up only because Unobscured Vision said the F9 had never had an engine failure during launch which just isn't the case.  Maybe 'failure' is a strong word for CRS-1 as the engine actually just shut itself down due to a detected pressure drop in the chamber and did not really 'fail'. So if anything, it just reinfored how well F9 can deal with issues and gracefully handle anomalies.

  • Like 1
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
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!