PDA

View Full Version : SpaceX Makes Progress Replicating Failure that Caused Falcon 9 Pad Explosion



Fraser
2016-Oct-31, 03:50 AM
SpaceX is making significant progress in replicating the failure in the helium pressurization system that led to the catastrophic launch pad explosion of the firms Falcon 9 rocket during a routine fueling test at their Florida Space Coast launch complex on September 1.
The post SpaceX Makes Progress Replicating Failure that Caused Falcon 9 Pad Explosion (http://www.universetoday.com/131698/spacex-makes-progress-replicating-failure-that-caused-falcon-9-pad-explosion/) appeared first on Universe Today (http://www.universetoday.com).


More... (http://www.universetoday.com/131698/spacex-makes-progress-replicating-failure-that-caused-falcon-9-pad-explosion/)

bknight
2016-Oct-31, 12:01 PM
Seems that the sniper on the roof top theory is not in the investigation procedure.

John Mendenhall
2016-Nov-01, 05:30 AM
In my opinion, this article says absolutely nothing new about the disaster.

Trebuchet
2016-Nov-01, 01:57 PM
In my opinion, this article says absolutely nothing new about the disaster.

This:

Through extensive testing in Texas, SpaceX has shown that it can re-create a COPV failure entirely through helium loading conditions.
was new to me.

John Mendenhall
2016-Nov-01, 04:34 PM
This:

was new to me.

We already know they were loading helium. How does that create a failure? More detail is needed.

Sorry, I find blind acceptance of SpaceX irritating.

bknight
2016-Nov-01, 04:35 PM
If this is/was the cause (COPV), then was SpaceX lucky on all previous second stage loadings? Or were conditions far different the day of the explosion versus the normal loading parameters?

WalrusLike
2016-Nov-01, 08:57 PM
We already know they were loading helium. How does that create a failure? More detail is needed.

Sorry, I find blind acceptance of SpaceX irritating.

Hmm.... your attitude seems to be affecting your comprehension.

The new info that was clearly stated in the post you criticised was that they now can reproduce the failure. That's the most critical point in failure analysis.... when you can reproduce it you can mitigate it.

So they found that at some regime of pressure and temperature they can cause a failure of some sort that causes the explosion. They can now explore that domain of parameters until they can determine which parameters to avoid in future.

bknight
2016-Nov-06, 04:37 PM
We already know they were loading helium. How does that create a failure? More detail is needed.

Sorry, I find blind acceptance of SpaceX irritating.

Seems like the guys at SpaceX are thinking that solid oxygen formed around the COPV's. If this is true, then why has it not occurred before during the loading prodecure? More details of the investigation, please.

http://www.space.com/34628-elon-musk-predicts-december-spacex-falcon9-launch.html

John Mendenhall
2016-Nov-10, 01:28 AM
Hmm.... your attitude seems to be affecting your comprehension.

The new info that was clearly stated in the post you criticised was that they now can reproduce the failure. That's the most critical point in failure analysis.... when you can reproduce it you can mitigate it.

So they found that at some regime of pressure and temperature they can cause a failure of some sort that causes the explosion. They can now explore that domain of parameters until they can determine which parameters to avoid in future.

Attitude ? Yes, indeed, correct.. In my lifetime, I have seen seventeen astronauts killed by NASA blunders, as have most of the posters here. I want it to stop, and not by transfering the responsibility to commercial outfits. That's my 'attitude'.

As far as this story is concerned, it fails the test parameters of a good news story, namely: who,what, where, when, why, and (sometimes) how. There is no new detail for any of the former in this story, other than a liquid helium tank failure will do it, and we already knew they were loading liquid helium.

I realize that criticism of SpaceX and CQ/UT is not a popular venue but, frankly, in my opinion they and we could do better.

WalrusLike
2016-Nov-10, 02:47 AM
Attitude ? Yes, indeed, correct.. In my lifetime, I have seen seventeen astronauts killed by NASA blunders, as have most of the posters here. I want it to stop, and not by transfering the responsibility to commercial outfits. That's my 'attitude'.

As far as this story is concerned, it fails the test parameters of a good news story, namely: who,what, where, when, why, and (sometimes) how. There is no new detail for any of the former in this story, other than a liquid helium tank failure will do it, and we already knew they were loading liquid helium.

I realize that criticism of SpaceX and CQ/UT is not a popular venue but, frankly, in my opinion they and we could do better.

Hmmm. I think we might be on different wavelengths. You said 'the article brings nothing new' then went on to say that fanboy fawning on SpaceX irritates you. (Paraphrasing)

I pointed out it does say something new... that SpaceX could _reproduce_ the fault. That was new and very important. Even your above quote seems to miss that point.

I still think you might have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about this because you seem to be criticising people for highlighting new information.

If there is not enough info for your tastes then fair enough... we probably all would like to see more released. But bagging someone for pointing out a valid and useful report seems unwarranted to me.