Author Topic: SpaceX: Falcon 9 Hotfire Attempt 2 Updates  (Read 107392 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28474
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8345
  • Likes Given: 5482
Re: SpaceX: Falcon 9 Hotfire Attempt 2 Updates
« Reply #260 on: 03/15/2010 03:25 PM »
Maybe they should call it a suborbital test flight with a slight possibility of launching a Dragon test article into orbit.
They have a decent probability of recovering the first stage, even if the upper stage fails. It's a kind of hedging their bets.

It also makes me wonder if DragonLab flights later on may actually be fitted with the abort system, since the abort fuel can be used to increase delta-V capability and also to save the capsule and pressurized payload in case of a launch vehicle problem. I mean, might as well standardize on one configuration if you can and it's not too expensive.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7532
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1749
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: SpaceX: Falcon 9 Hotfire Attempt 2 Updates
« Reply #261 on: 03/15/2010 03:29 PM »
It also makes me wonder if DragonLab flights later on may actually be fitted with the abort system, since the abort fuel can be used to increase delta-V capability

AIUI the abort system would tap into the existing RCS tanks so it would provide no delta-V gain. Having abort engines would actually provide a slight delta-V penalty due to increased dry mass, but the idea of fitting DragonLabs with abort motors is interesting, especially if those are reused crew Dragons. Not sure how the payloads inside would cope with 10+ Gs of acceleration in case of abort, though.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32426
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11164
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: SpaceX: Falcon 9 Hotfire Attempt 2 Updates
« Reply #262 on: 03/15/2010 03:56 PM »

The individual systems all seem to be working.  Where SpaceX suffers from immaturity is overall systems engineering.  Not surprising, considering that their chief systems engineer is just learning how to do the job.

With some more maturity under their (His) belt, I hope for good things from SpaceX.

Bingo

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12882
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3939
  • Likes Given: 752
Re: SpaceX: Falcon 9 Hotfire Attempt 2 Updates
« Reply #263 on: 03/15/2010 04:24 PM »
... Not one Spacex vehicle has ever exploded. ...

Except for that first Falcon 1, when it impacted the surface at high speed with a largely unburned propellant load.  That one exploded.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7532
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1749
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: SpaceX: Falcon 9 Hotfire Attempt 2 Updates
« Reply #264 on: 03/15/2010 04:29 PM »
Except for that first Falcon 1, when it impacted the surface at high speed with a largely unburned propellant load.  That one exploded.

Sure, ram a car fast enough into a wall and it might explode as well. An explosion wasn't the failure mechanism is what he's saying.

Offline stockman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6916
  • Southern Ontario - Canada
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX: Falcon 9 Hotfire Attempt 2 Updates
« Reply #265 on: 03/15/2010 04:45 PM »
Moderators - Now that the Firing is done and documented maybe this thread should be locked - Good conversation going on here but maybe better suited to the spacex discussion threads...
One Percent for Space!!!

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12882
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3939
  • Likes Given: 752
Re: SpaceX: Falcon 9 Hotfire Attempt 2 Updates
« Reply #266 on: 03/15/2010 04:45 PM »
Except for that first Falcon 1, when it impacted the surface at high speed with a largely unburned propellant load.  That one exploded.

Sure, ram a car fast enough into a wall and it might explode as well. An explosion wasn't the failure mechanism is what he's saying.

I'm trying to remember a launch vehicle that failed *because* it exploded.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7532
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1749
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: SpaceX: Falcon 9 Hotfire Attempt 2 Updates
« Reply #267 on: 03/15/2010 04:47 PM »
I'm trying to remember a launch vehicle that failed *because* it exploded.

One of SRB-related failures would be a start. Liquid rockets, not so much.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7454
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 169
Re: SpaceX: Falcon 9 Hotfire Attempt 2 Updates
« Reply #268 on: 03/15/2010 05:01 PM »
I'm trying to remember a launch vehicle that failed *because* it exploded.

Er, Challenger?
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7140
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 771
Re: SpaceX: Falcon 9 Hotfire Attempt 2 Updates
« Reply #269 on: 03/15/2010 05:03 PM »
Except for that first Falcon 1, when it impacted the surface at high speed with a largely unburned propellant load.  That one exploded.

Sure, ram a car fast enough into a wall and it might explode as well. An explosion wasn't the failure mechanism is what he's saying.

I'm trying to remember a launch vehicle that failed *because* it exploded.

I've seen lots of newsreel footage of early Atlas and Titan-Is blowing up.  Or were those range safety destructs?
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline JMS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 327
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: SpaceX: Falcon 9 Hotfire Attempt 2 Updates
« Reply #270 on: 03/15/2010 05:07 PM »
Explosion wasn't the failure mechanism with Challenger either.

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7532
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1749
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: SpaceX: Falcon 9 Hotfire Attempt 2 Updates
« Reply #271 on: 03/15/2010 05:21 PM »
Titan 34D-9, Delta II GPS 2R.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7454
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 169
Re: SpaceX: Falcon 9 Hotfire Attempt 2 Updates
« Reply #272 on: 03/15/2010 05:29 PM »
Explosion wasn't the failure mechanism with Challenger either.

Because it was just a deflagration? Or because it was one of the SRBs that broke off? It did "explode" in flight in the ordinary sense of that word. The Falcon exploded on impact. Seems like an important distinction. An explosion in flight could blow up the crew, an engine failure would still allow them to get away safely. It wouldn't matter to them if the vehicle did explode on impact.
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline Art LeBrun

  • Photo freak
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • Orange, California
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX: Falcon 9 Hotfire Attempt 2 Updates
« Reply #273 on: 03/15/2010 05:32 PM »
Titan 34D-9, Delta II GPS 2R.

Since 34D-9 is IDed by number then Delta 241 was the 1-17-1997 failure......
1958 launch vehicle highlights: Vanguard TV-4 and Atlas 12B

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX: Falcon 9 Hotfire Attempt 2 Updates
« Reply #274 on: 03/15/2010 05:37 PM »
Anyone else notice that in one of the pics that the rocket appears to be bending to the right. I'm thinking it must be a camera affect but, I noticed someone here mentioned it as well. I don't see the bending in any of the other pics or in the videos.

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7532
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1749
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: SpaceX: Falcon 9 Hotfire Attempt 2 Updates
« Reply #275 on: 03/15/2010 05:37 PM »
Explosion wasn't the failure mechanism with Challenger either.

Because it was just a deflagration? Or because it was one of the SRBs that broke off? It did "explode" in flight in the ordinary sense of that word.

So did many other vehicles, either due to range safety or ISDS action. Doesn't meant the explosion was the primary failure mechanism.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: SpaceX: Falcon 9 Hotfire Attempt 2 Updates
« Reply #276 on: 03/15/2010 07:08 PM »
Moderators - Now that the Firing is done and documented maybe this thread should be locked - Good conversation going on here but maybe better suited to the spacex discussion threads...

Agreed, and sorry for not noticing sooner.

Tags: