Page 64 of 67 FirstFirst ... 14546263646566 ... LastLast
Results 1,891 to 1,920 of 1987

Thread: SpaceX

  1. #1891
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    562
    Whoa....

    Musk did a Starship presentation for DoD at NORAD. Interesting in that last year the USAF's Air Mobility Command expressed interest in Starship's Earth Point to Point cargo capability.

    CityofCOS = Colorado Springs, Colorado

    North American Aerospace Defense Command ✔ @NORADCommand
    NORAD welcomed @SpaceX CEO Elon Musk April 15, 2019 to @CityofCOS, where he participated in conversations and round table briefings about future space operations and homeland defense innovation.
    1:45 PM - Apr 16, 2019

    https://twitter.com/NORADCommand/sta...08899893604353

    IMG_20190416_164205.jpg

    IMG_20190416_164151.jpg

    IMG_20190416_164202.jpg

  2. #1892
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,064
    I guess I didn't read all the information on the core booster, it didn't fall completely overboard, or they recovered the bottom portion because according to Musk the Merlin engine seem fine.

    https://www.geekwire.com/2019/spacex...booster-falls/

    The engines are clearly seen in the lower portion of the web page.

  3. #1893
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,382
    Ah, a picture of the Fallen Merlin with the Big Booster. Unseen sine 'Allo 'allo.

    At least one of the nozzles seems dented. Could have been worse. At the very least they'll be able to investigate the booster, best case they can reuse it after some extra work.

  4. #1894
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,207
    "SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft suffers an anomaly during static fire testing at Cape Canaveral"

    https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019...-fire-testing/

    Just six weeks after splashing down in the Atlantic Ocean following a successful Demo-1 test flight, the same SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft was set to perform multiple static fire tests on Saturday to verify that the capsule’s propulsion systems were functioning properly ahead of an inflight abort test planned for the summer. However, during the testing, the spacecraft suffered a significant anomaly. The incident will likely lead to further delays with NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

  5. #1895
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NEOTP Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,651
    Scott Manley says the capsule is likely destroyed.

    https://youtu.be/Fl3Jcczz5PY

    On April 20th SpaceX was performing an engine test on its recovered Dragon 2 capsule when an anomaly occured. Large clouds of orange tinted smoke were seen for miles around the test site and sources have reported that the capsule can been destroyed. There's not much information to go on at this time, but it's likely that this will result in the commercial crew program being further delayed.
    Orange smoke = not good.

  6. #1896
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,699
    Someone got video of it: https://twitter.com/Astronut099/stat...742530560?s=20
    That capsule's clearly not flying again.

    This was the capsule that flew to the ISS and returned for a dunk in the ocean. This happened at the end of a series of tests, just before a static fire of the SuperDraco thrusters. An obvious first guess is that a COPV was damaged by the landing or in refurbishment/testing afterward, but there's not much information publicly available yet.

    If you were wondering why they want specifically to avoid high pressure helium systems on Starship, well...

  7. #1897
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,207
    Two bits of information from the latest report. One is, the !st manned flight by SpaceX has been delayed. The second, an explosion occurred that led to the destruction of the return mechanism.

    http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/1s...tests_999.html

    The first manned flight of Dragon 2 spacecraft to the International Space Station (ISS) has been put off due to an accident that occurred during the tests, a source in the aerospace industry told Sputnik.

    "The SuperDraco engines of the emergency response systems of the Dragon 2 spacecraft were being tested. For this purpose, the return mechanism of the unmanned spacecraft Dragon 2, which made a test flight to the ISS in March, was used. As a result of an accident, an explosion occurred that led to the destruction of the return mechanism ...

    "It is necessary to deal with the causes of the accident that took place during the tests. All this would take a long time. Now, the launch of the Dragon 2 spacecraft in July is out of the question. [It can take place] not earlier than the end of the year", the source said.
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

  8. #1898
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    No longer near Grover's Mill
    Posts
    4,785
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    Two bits of information from the latest report. One is, the !st manned flight by SpaceX has been delayed. The second, an explosion occurred that led to the destruction of the return mechanism.

    http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/1s...tests_999.html
    Can anyone clarify what is meant by “return mechanism?”



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. - Jimmy Hoffa

  9. #1899
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Extravoice View Post
    Can anyone clarify what is meant by “return mechanism?”
    The source is apparently someone who doesn't realize that the Dragon spacecraft is the return mechanism.

    It seems safe to say the first manned flight will be delayed. How long the delay will be can't be known yet.

  10. #1900
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,207
    "Video appears to show SpaceX's new spaceship for NASA exploding during a safety test"

    https://www.businessinsider.com/vide...t-2019-4/?IR=T

    Eric Berger, a senior space editor at Ars Technica, said on Twitter that he understood that the video was legitimate.

    When asked if any additional information about the video had been released, he said: "No there has not. But I understand the video is legitimate and it's consistent with accounts I've heard."
    I am because we are
    (African saying)

  11. #1901
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Extravoice View Post
    Can anyone clarify what is meant by “return mechanism?”
    The explosion apparently involved the built-in SuperDraco rocket engines that are part of the capsule. Their primary function is for the abort mechanism of a manned launch (to propel the capsule away from the main rocket in case of rocket failures).

    At one time SpaceX was also looking to use them for a rocket-powered reentry, to land the capsule.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  12. #1902
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,382
    Quote Originally Posted by Extravoice View Post
    Can anyone clarify what is meant by “return mechanism?”
    Either a weird way of saying "abort mechanism", refering to the fact the Superdraco's are used for the deorbit burn (are they?) or someone who isn't up to date with the fact the Superdraco's will not be used to land (parachutes instead). Anyway, as the explosion happened at T-8 for the superdraco ignition and the explosion wasn't seen coming out of the nozzles, Those Who Tend To Know assume the failure was in the fuel/oxidizer tanks. So possibly something very similar to a previous SpaceX mishap, only in a different craft. Probably some months delays to trace and solve the issue.

  13. #1903
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,064
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    Someone got video of it: https://twitter.com/Astronut099/stat...742530560?s=20
    That capsule's clearly not flying again.

    This was the capsule that flew to the ISS and returned for a dunk in the ocean. This happened at the end of a series of tests, just before a static fire of the SuperDraco thrusters. An obvious first guess is that a COPV was damaged by the landing or in refurbishment/testing afterward, but there's not much information publicly available yet.

    If you were wondering why they want specifically to avoid high pressure helium systems on Starship, well...
    Didn't they experience another failure of a COPV during a loading fuel/oxidizer and destroy some of the launch facilities?

  14. #1904
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,382
    I don't think the explosion was strong enough to cause significant pad damage.

  15. #1905
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    I don't think the explosion was strong enough to cause significant pad damage.
    No I was referring to the earlier explosion.

  16. #1906
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,699
    Quote Originally Posted by bknight View Post
    Didn't they experience another failure of a COPV during a loading fuel/oxidizer and destroy some of the launch facilities?
    The Amos-6 accident, yes. A helium COPV in the LOX tank, with a previously unknown failure mode that would only occur with subcooled LOX.

    In this case, a COPV failure would either be an ambient temperature helium COPV, or a much lower pressure propellant tank COPV (also at ambient temperature, or close to it) being pressurized from such a helium COPV. A burst COPV might also not be the result of a COPV failure...a valve or regulator failure might lead to one of the propellant COPVs being overpressurized by unregulated flow from the helium COPV. Someone's getting a Nobel if they managed to form solid oxygen in the liner again.

  17. #1907
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,386
    I love the euphemisms they use. A "significant anomaly."

    If I were an astronaut I guess I'd rather die in an anomaly than a massive explosion!
    As above, so below

  18. #1908
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,382
    Remember that Delta II launch that had the most ginormous explosion, a fireball of burning fuel raining down all over the Cape as if hell itself descended upon earth? The Communication officer described the scene with -devoid of any intonation- "Um...it seems we have had an anomaly...".

    Let's hope SpaceX finds and solves the issue soon so things can go back to norminal quickly.

  19. #1909
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    1,064
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    The Amos-6 accident, yes. A helium COPV in the LOX tank, with a previously unknown failure mode that would only occur with subcooled LOX.

    In this case, a COPV failure would either be an ambient temperature helium COPV, or a much lower pressure propellant tank COPV (also at ambient temperature, or close to it) being pressurized from such a helium COPV. A burst COPV might also not be the result of a COPV failure...a valve or regulator failure might lead to one of the propellant COPVs being overpressurized by unregulated flow from the helium COPV. Someone's getting a Nobel if they managed to form solid oxygen in the liner again.
    Ah yes, now I remember that one. Some loons suggested that a UFO destroyed the rocket.

  20. #1910
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    Remember that Delta II launch that had the most ginormous explosion, a fireball of burning fuel raining down all over the Cape as if hell itself descended upon earth? The Communication officer described the scene with -devoid of any intonation- "Um...it seems we have had an anomaly..."
    A while back I became interested in that word, "anomaly," as it was used in the space industry. It's been used prominently from the 1986 Challenger accident onward, and it nearly ALWAYS means a combination of "something blew up real big" and "get under cover/run/hide/get out of here NOW."
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    — Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  21. #1911
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,382
    I say the use of "anomaly" should be limited to unmanned craft turning into huge fireballs; the manned variant has been "oh the humanity" since 1937.

  22. #1912
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    Remember that Delta II launch that had the most ginormous explosion, a fireball of burning fuel raining down all over the Cape as if hell itself descended upon earth? The Communication officer described the scene with -devoid of any intonation- "Um...it seems we have had an anomaly...".
    Some links to the Delta II explosion:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_IIR-1
    http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/9701/17/...ion/index.html
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_aHEit-SqA
    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
    — Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi (1883)

  23. #1913
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    Remember that Delta II launch that had the most ginormous explosion, a fireball of burning fuel raining down all over the Cape as if hell itself descended upon earth? The Communication officer described the scene with -devoid of any intonation- "Um...it seems we have had an anomaly...".
    I actually loved the inflection in her voice myself.

    Quote Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
    Actually supporting the SLS side of things.
    Even if no one else tells you this--thank you for the work you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by docmordrid View Post
    The first Super Heavy booster build starts soon after Starship Mk 1 is finished.
    That's what I am looking forward to.

    ************************************************** ********************

    In terms of the recent Dragon test.



    "The first abnormal frame of the video shows a fireball about two meters in diameter. This is only a small fraction of the energy released in the CX-40 explosion which released the energy stored in a large COPV. This and the proximity to ignition suggests to me that this was a hydrazine detonation triggered by decomposition in a sealed line and resultant adiabatic compression. Contamination in the line (perhaps due to salt water intrusion) would seem the most likely cause."

    From:
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/in...880#msg1938880

    Then too:

    "The highlighted above assumes that the issue is with salt water. Alternatives could be:

    -Damage caused by frozen fuel lines (as hinted at by the restricted flight profile DM-1 flew).
    -Heating damage coming in thru the Super-Draco ports since they are open in that direction during re-entry.
    -Parts that are fine for one flight but cannot withstand the rigors of flight in condition for reflight and need to be replaced first.

    If it were any of those, then the explosion could have occurred after re-entry while the system was pressurizing for the landing. If any of the above prove true then I personally think this should be the final nail in the propulsive landing coffin."

    Of note:

    "Hydrazine Rapid/Adiabatic compression sensitivity may occur when hydrazine flows into initially empty (e.g. filled with gas) propellant distribution lines
    resulting in a temperature increasing collapsing bubble sufficient to initiate detonation."

    Others disagree--

    "That paper is talking about hydrazine N2H4, which can self-decompose and release heat, especially as a vapour. SpaceX is using mono methyl hydrazine CH3N2H3, which I understand is much harder to self-decompose and releases less energy."

    Cut-aways
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/in...957#msg1938957

    Discussion:

    "The shape of the pressure vessel and the fact dragon is supported from below would seem to suggest the blast from a ruptured copv would be directed upwards and outwards, as seen. The location of the Draco cluster adjacent to the copv could provide additional directivity. So the copv behind the dracos looks like the top candidate and potentially it was damaged by some undetected internal failure on the Draco test that is said to have occurred just prior to the anomaly."

    SuperDracos protected from re-entry?
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/in...184#msg1939184

    Or could it have sealed after damage was done?

    More:
    https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/in...opic=48003.440

    Hopper lines dealing with ice--but that was fixed.
    https://www.universetoday.com/141896...ant-prevalves/

    It has been a bad week for aerospace in general: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=40536

  24. #1914
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    14,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    I say the use of "anomaly" should be limited to unmanned craft turning into huge fireballs; the manned variant has been "oh the humanity" since 1937.
    I'm reminded of "Obviously a major malfunction" in the Challenger disaster.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  25. #1915
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    562
    There's talk it may have been a ZOT*; unburned props being sucked into a manifold then not fully flushed before another burn and igniting there. Usually happens on the ground, not in space.

    * Named for the sound made by the anteater in the BC comics.

    In other news,

    CRS-17 is still a GO for May 1 at 0359 EDT and

    Recently SpaceX did the second funding round in the last few nonths for STARLINK and Starship/Super Heavy. Together they should bank another $1 billion by years end.

    In more news; SpaceX STARLINK statement,

    Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved SpaceXs request to fly more than 1,500 of its Starlink satellites at an altitude of 550 kilometers. Additional information on the approval can be found here, and the following statement can be attributed to Gwynne Shotwell, President and Chief Operating Officer at SpaceX:

    "This approval underscores the FCCs confidence in SpaceX's plans to deploy its next-generation satellite constellation and connect people around the world with reliable and affordable broadband service. Starlink production is well underway, and the first group of satellites have already arrived at the launch site for processing."

    SpaceX is targeting no earlier than May for launch of a Starlink mission.

    Last year, SpaceX became the first U.S.-based company to be licensed by the FCC to operate a NGSO constellation of more than 11,000 satellites.

    Earlier this year, SpaceX submitted an application to operate 1 million user terminals as well as its first six gateways to provide the necessary communications links back from the satellites to the global Internet. SpaceX intends to install sufficient gateway sites in the U.S. and around the world to ensure that the Starlink satellites have a visible gateway earth station with which they can communicate from all parts of their orbits.
    Last edited by docmordrid; 2019-Apr-27 at 01:41 AM.

  26. #1916
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    562
    Starship Mk 1 stacking

    Chris B - NSF @NASASpaceflight
    Starhopper's big sister is undergoing some stacking operations in Boca Chica!

    Nosecone/Fairing for the orbital prototype test vehicle.

    @BocaChicaGal https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/in...606#msg1940606
    12:33 PM - Apr 27, 2019

    BC sections joined 3-04272019-2048.jpg

  27. #1917
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    562
    This Raptor SN03 test was reportedly heard ~15 miles away.

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1122659764029153282

    Reagan Beck @bluemoondance74
    Replying to @elonmusk and 2 others
    Please forgive my [over]eagerness... but was that indeed the Raptor SN3 heard from SpaceX McGregor yesterday? (For an incredible 40 sec)
    |
    Elon Musk ✔ @elonmusk
    Yes

  28. #1918
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    562
    Felix @gatoparlante
    Replying to @elonmusk
    How is going to safely land Spaceship without a landing zone? Can it tolerate landing & taking off on a not perfectly flat area? Moon surface is quite irregular.
    |
    Elon Musk ✔ @elonmusk
    Yes

    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1122826522748841984

    Latest renders (official)

    Moon
    IMG_20190429_092344.jpg

    Mars
    IMG_20190429_092416.jpg

  29. #1919
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,382
    If he weren't building the thing as we speak, I'd call it preposterous. I hope to see hopper hop soon!

  30. #1920
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,239
    Quote Originally Posted by docmordrid View Post
    Recently SpaceX did the second funding round in the last few nonths for STARLINK and Starship/Super Heavy. Together they should bank another $1 billion by years end.
    Good news. Thanks for helping us keep up.

    Something I just thought about...

    Hypergolic tanks don't seem to be as flush with the outer surface of the wider Orion as they are in Dragon. Maybe that makes a difference?

    I'm fine with hypergolics or solids, pusher/tractor set ups--everything has its pluses and minuses.

    Falcon rockets never really had a failure in returning through the atmosphere (just sticking the landing early on--which is dialed in now)

    Dealing with cramped confines/payloads/upper stages--that's where all the bad bugs are for whatever reason. I had hopes that Bezos would go for the plug nozzle Big Onion route. Scale things up--and it seems things just get more resistant what with extra mass.

    Now here is a crazy suggestion

    When I first heard of the MOL Gemini with the hatch through the heat-shield (and its Soviet VA counterpart), I thought it was insane. But shuttle has had no real problems with the landing gear covers, and the long stem VA (what with retros/escape towers part of one structure) was actually very agile. Cosmos 881 and 882 came down less than a mile from each other after two of them was lofted by a single UR-500 Proton (in The Dream Machines, it is falsely depicted as belly to belly minispaceplanes)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA_spa...and_Kosmos_882

    So I'm going to throw this out and see what people think of this.

    Place the docking hatch on the bottom of a capsule, not the nose. The spacecraft points its belly to a target, and thus the heat shield is not in the way of space debris. The hypergolic tank is toward the center, ringed by passengers--far from the wall of the capsule. Thus, only inert hatch mechanisms are near the heat shield, as opposed to tankage, plumbling, etc.

    You have the hypergolics feed upward--to an escape tower that has no solids--or is a hybrid.

    Thus you have a liquid fueled tractor system. No chance of salt water intrusion--because it is up and out of the way.

    A diving bell has its lower hatch off--and the water stays out of that "capsule" even with a big hole in the bottom--or should I say--because of it. Pull it out of the water by a hook on the tower, and guys come out of the bottom inside a ship.

    That's new isn't it?

    Discuss.
    Last edited by publiusr; 2019-Apr-30 at 05:46 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •