Recommended Posts

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.

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 by DocM
  • Like 1

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 by DocM
  • Like 2

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. :yes: 

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.

  • Like 1

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."

  • Like 2

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/

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.
>

 

 

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.

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 by DocM
  • Like 2

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.

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.

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. :yes: 

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.

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.

 

 

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.

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.

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 :)))

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).

 

 

  • 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!