Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1 DISCUSSION AND UPDATES (THREAD 1)  (Read 791241 times)

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1200 on: 03/09/2013 04:48 am »
A reusable vehicle is much cheaper to test...
I'm still having trouble seeing how reuse could pay off.  We saw last year that a Merlin fired one too many times, with a test history just slightly longer than other flown engines, blew itself apart.  How many of these recovered engines could actually be reused? 

 - Ed Kyle

As others are pointing out, it was a fabrication flaw.

I find it in bad taste and unprofessional to allege that SpaceX's statements are intentionally misleading.  This goes back to the "sudden pressure release" - there was a lot of bad-natured talk about how SpaceX was practically hiding the true nature of the incident, talk that was absolutely baseless.

Even now, you choose to go with "blew itself apart", whereas from what we're hearing it was a rapture of the jacket over the cooling channels, which would have resulted in basically a high-pressure diffuse spray of fuel, and a partial drop in pressure which they detected and acted upon - exactly what Elon described it at the time.

SpaceX, like anyone else, will always try to put the best face on any issue, going back to the first failed F1, and we're grown-up enough to see past that. But they have never, to my recollection, mis-characterized any of their failures.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1201 on: 03/09/2013 05:29 am »
Rocket engines /can/ be made to be reused and reused many, many times. There are several historical and contemporary examples.

As far as reuse being worthwhile, again my main point is that if they can reuse the first stage (which actually seems quite feasible at this point, though nothing is guaranteed) and do it without having to essentially remanufacture it, I can see the stage able to be test-launched a few times just for certification purposes. And such test launches would be pretty cheap relative to a full launch (although such tests would, of necessity, be suborbital for the first stage). I'm sure NASA and others would require a few full orbital launches still, though.

But I think that SpaceX is going to be forced to stick with v1.1 (we hope with a reusable first stage) for the next few years at least. Their manifest is just too packed.


As far as Ed: Look, it appears the engine blew itself apart. Ed seems to pride himself in being a wet blanket for these things (except for hobby horse of large-diameter solids), but I don't think saying it blew itself apart is out of line. Words are powerful, and I can see why SpaceX refers to it the way they do and it might even be more technically accurate, but it still looked like it blew itself apart, and these words aren't technically precise anyway; there's enough leeway that both SpaceX and Ed can both be right in their characterizations (though who you think is /more/ accurate or less misleading depends on opinion).
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 jimhillhouse

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1202 on: 03/09/2013 06:18 am »
A reusable vehicle is much cheaper to test...
I'm still having trouble seeing how reuse could pay off.  We saw last year that a Merlin fired one too many times, with a test history just slightly longer than other flown engines, blew itself apart.  How many of these recovered engines could actually be reused? 

 - Ed Kyle

I find it in bad taste and unprofessional to allege that SpaceX's statements are intentionally misleading.  This goes back to the "sudden pressure release" - there was a lot of bad-natured talk about how SpaceX was practically hiding the true nature of the incident, talk that was absolutely baseless.

But they have never, to my recollection, mis-characterized any of their failures.

Suing Joe Fragola for making what SpaceX claimed were defamatory allegations about the safety and reliability of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket left a lot of folks with a bad taste in their mouths. And "oxidizer-rich shutdown" was another.

I would say that Elon is his own worst enemy, but that is more likely reserved for Sen. Shelby. Openly criticizing Shelby was a very immature thing to do.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1203 on: 03/09/2013 06:22 am »
Except what Joe said basically /was/ defamatory and much of it false.

Let's just stop getting our hackles up before the Off-topic sheriff comes here.
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 meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1204 on: 03/09/2013 06:30 am »
A reusable vehicle is much cheaper to test...
I'm still having trouble seeing how reuse could pay off.  We saw last year that a Merlin fired one too many times, with a test history just slightly longer than other flown engines, blew itself apart.  How many of these recovered engines could actually be reused? 

 - Ed Kyle

I find it in bad taste and unprofessional to allege that SpaceX's statements are intentionally misleading.  This goes back to the "sudden pressure release" - there was a lot of bad-natured talk about how SpaceX was practically hiding the true nature of the incident, talk that was absolutely baseless.

But they have never, to my recollection, mis-characterized any of their failures.

Suing Joe Fragola for making what SpaceX claimed were defamatory allegations about the safety and reliability of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket left a lot of folks with a bad taste in their mouths. And "oxidizer-rich shutdown" was another.

I would say that Elon is his own worst enemy, but that is more likely reserved for Sen. Shelby. Openly criticizing Shelby was a very immature thing to do.

“I have just heard a rumor, and I am trying now to check its veracity, that the Falcon 9 experienced a double engine failure in the first stage and that the entire stage blew up just after the first stage separated. I also heard that this information was being held from NASA until SpaceX can ‘verify’ it,” Fragola wrote O’Connor, according to court papers.”

That old bit?
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline nisse

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1205 on: 03/09/2013 06:50 am »
Chris
Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

"Sorry to say it, but if your interest in space is only the launch piece then you aren't interested in space, just big fireworks." --Michael Mealling
8520 repetitions of  this message. And counting.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1206 on: 03/09/2013 11:10 am »

Even now, you choose to go with "blew itself apart", whereas from what we're hearing it was a rapture of the jacket over the cooling channels, which would have resulted in basically a high-pressure diffuse spray of fuel,

It was a bit more than that

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1207 on: 03/09/2013 12:40 pm »
For the past four days in a row, we've had to trim this thread to stop it from wandering off topic. Please take this as a warning that the next person to take it off topic will be sent to the off topic sheriff's office.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Okie_Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1886
  • Oklahoma, USA
  • Liked: 1141
  • Likes Given: 725
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1208 on: 03/09/2013 02:53 pm »
Returning to the topic of putative ocean landing attempt of V1.1 first stage on it's maiden flight.

I've been wondering about the properties of a water landing. Assuming a vertical "stick" landing will water approximate a solid surface or will there be a large "bowl" blown in the surface by the exhaust? Also, how much boiling will occur and which way will the steam have to go and what will it do to the stage. Finally, anyone have a good speculation about what contact with cold water will do to the engines?

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8839
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1304
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1209 on: 03/09/2013 03:02 pm »
Returning to the topic of putative ocean landing attempt of V1.1 first stage on it's maiden flight.

I've been wondering about the properties of a water landing. Assuming a vertical "stick" landing will water approximate a solid surface or will there be a large "bowl" blown in the surface by the exhaust? Also, how much boiling will occur and which way will the steam have to go and what will it do to the stage. Finally, anyone have a good speculation about what contact with cold water will do to the engines?
Hard to believe a recently lit engine could survive that thermal shock. Maybe the center one will be sacrificial.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1210 on: 03/09/2013 03:14 pm »
Bear in mind that an engine does not run at a uniform temperature. Within the space of a few mm there is cryogenic LOX and hot combustion products. IANARS but I suspect that these engines are actually pretty resilient.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1211 on: 03/09/2013 03:16 pm »
It's not supposed to reused after the water landing, just prove that it can impact the ocean in one piece (something v1.0 never did). The killer is side loads, so they have to prove they can orient the vehicle tail first before the rest of the recovery sequence can work. If they do a relight and softly land in the water, great, but that's nothing Grasshopper can't do.
« Last Edit: 03/09/2013 03:18 pm by simonbp »

Offline KSC Sage

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 521
  • Liked: 1591
  • Likes Given: 334
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1212 on: 03/09/2013 03:25 pm »
So in essence we are go for next launch first stage turnaround and attempted slow down. Wow! So quick. I thought the process would take years.

The plan for the v1.1 version of F9 to do a retroburn and try a vertical drop of the stage directly down was reported here by KSC Sage a long time ago. So long that most people (including me) seem to have forgot about it since.

ugordan, thanks for remembering me. 

Offline KSC Sage

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 521
  • Liked: 1591
  • Likes Given: 334
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1213 on: 03/09/2013 03:29 pm »
Based on noises from SpaceX about mass production, it certainly sounds like they are trying to settle on the v1.1 and mass produce that. (using lessons learned from F9v1.0)

I've been told that the v1.1 will become SpaceX's "workhorse" launch vehicle.  SpaceX has told NASA they plan on producing up to 40 v1.1 cores/boosters a year for the F9 and F-H vehicles.

Offline Okie_Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1886
  • Oklahoma, USA
  • Liked: 1141
  • Likes Given: 725
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1214 on: 03/09/2013 03:39 pm »
It's not supposed to reused after the water landing, just prove that it can impact the ocean in one piece (something v1.0 never did). The killer is side loads, so they have to prove they can orient the vehicle tail first before the rest of the recovery sequence can work. If they do a relight and softly land in the water, great, but that's nothing Grasshopper can't do.
I was thinking more in terms of how much damage a water landing would do vs a grasshopper style dirt landing. At a minimum I would expect the center nozzle to implode once the bottom is sealed by water and chilling begins. But, that still leaves lots of forensic knowledge to be obtained about the flight hardware if they get it back. The physical landing environments are different enough that I don't have a good feeling for what will happen on water. Ergo the question.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1215 on: 03/09/2013 03:40 pm »

I've been told that the v1.1 will become SpaceX's "workhorse" launch vehicle.  SpaceX has told NASA they plan on producing up to 40 v1.1 cores/boosters a year for the F9 and F-H vehicles.

That was a given

Online smoliarm

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 831
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Liked: 717
  • Likes Given: 611
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1216 on: 03/09/2013 03:44 pm »
...
Assuming a vertical "stick" landing will water approximate a solid surface or will there be a large "bowl" blown in the surface by the exhaust?
It will displace some water - proportionally to the engine thrust, but not 100%. So, just before "touchdown" there should be a bowl of about several dozens cubic meters volume, I'd love to see that :)

Quote
Also, how much boiling will occur and which way will the steam have to go and what will it do to the stage.
I can't tell how much, or where the steam will go (mostly up, I guess), but I can tell for sure this "steam" will have a lot of atomized chlorine, and therefore it can produce some corrosive damage, especially to Al-Li alloy.

Quote
Finally, anyone have a good speculation about what contact with cold water will do to the engines?
It is a safe guess that the working engine will be ruined, for everything else it depends on actual temperature. I passed my metallurgy exam long ago, but still remember that quenching makes steel harder but more brittle. So may be the thrust structure wont be reusable after such quench-splash...
« Last Edit: 03/09/2013 03:47 pm by smoliarm »

Offline Galactic Penguin SST

Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1217 on: 03/09/2013 03:52 pm »

I've been told that the v1.1 will become SpaceX's "workhorse" launch vehicle.  SpaceX has told NASA they plan on producing up to 40 v1.1 cores/boosters a year for the F9 and F-H vehicles.

That was a given

I bet you are meaning the first sentence, because there's no way that SpaceX has the launch demand needed to produce 40 cores/boosters per year (currently the most produced almost-completely-same core stages must be the Soyuz rockets, and they are only flying up to 20 flights per year).  ::)
Astronomy & spaceflight geek penguin. In a relationship w/ Space Shuttle Discovery. Current Priority: Chasing the Chinese Spaceflight Wonder Egg & A Certain Chinese Mars Rover

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1218 on: 03/09/2013 03:55 pm »
Soyuz has five cores per flight. Sort of. ;)
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 Okie_Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1886
  • Oklahoma, USA
  • Liked: 1141
  • Likes Given: 725
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9 v1.1
« Reply #1219 on: 03/09/2013 03:59 pm »
It will displace some water - proportionally to the engine thrust, but not 100%. So, just before "touchdown" there should be a bowl of about several dozens cubic meters volume, I'd love to see that :)

Hmmm, maybe they will try to "touchdown" at a negative altitude of a couple of meters for this test then, depending on how deep the "bowl" is, the effects of the bowl collapsing on engine shutdown, and the floating stability of the stage. Falling over and buckling can't be good for recovery prospects.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0