Author Topic: A Beginners Guide To (almost) Everything SpaceX (PDF)  (Read 24538 times)

Offline smndk

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 92
  • Denmark
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: A Beginners Guide To (almost) Everything SpaceX (PDF)
« Reply #20 on: 11/16/2017 10:54 AM »
Great work.

I have one comment: I do not believe that the AMOS-6 failure were due to overpressurization of the second stage. The cause were far more complex. Someone can probably explain it much better, but I believe it were due to oxygen solidifying inside the carbon composite of the helium tanks COPVs. This due to design and propellant loading speed and temperature.

/Svend

Offline basedoesgames

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Jared-Base - Amateur Photographer
  • Orlando, FL
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: A Beginners Guide To (almost) Everything SpaceX (PDF)
« Reply #21 on: 11/16/2017 11:17 AM »
Great work.

I have one comment: I do not believe that the AMOS-6 failure were due to overpressurization of the second stage. The cause were far more complex. Someone can probably explain it much better, but I believe it were due to oxygen solidifying inside the carbon composite of the helium tanks COPVs. This due to design and propellant loading speed and temperature.

/Svend

That is correct and i believe the solid oxygen caused the helium tanks to expand and rupture, thus causing over pressurization. I could be wrong though. May have to rewatch Scott Manley's video :P
Twitter: @baserunner0723
Beginners Guide to SpaceX: http://bit.ly/2jj8rqv

Offline basedoesgames

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Jared-Base - Amateur Photographer
  • Orlando, FL
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: A Beginners Guide To (almost) Everything SpaceX (PDF)
« Reply #22 on: 11/16/2017 11:18 AM »
Great presentation, but since you asked for feedback ...
<grabs blue pencil>
-Slide 4 says Falcon 1 was an "expendable rocket design." It was an expendable rocket, "design" just confuses the issue.
-Slide 5 says there were 4 Falcon 9 v1.0 launches, but there were 5, as is correctly noted on slide 6.
-Slide 8 says the v1.1 had 60% more thrust and weight than v1.0. Wouldn't increasing weight the same amount as thrust eliminate the benefit of increasing the thrust. I don't have the numbers, but suspect that weight growth was less than thrust increase from v1.0 to v1.1.
-Slide 16 says SLC-40 is "on at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station." Here "on" and "at" are redundant and "the" is unnecessary.
-Slide 18 has 3 instances of "SLC-40" where "SLC-4" is intended.
-Slide 19 says Boca Chica will be operational "no later than late 2018." Do you mean "no earlier than?" There is a bunch of work to be done there (about 99%l of it) and "late 2018" is only 13 months away.
-Slide 23 says SpaceX owns the ASDSes. I believe those are leased, not owned.
-Slide 29 includes the Merlin 1B engine that was planned but never produced.
-Slide 30 says Draco thrusters were used for attitude control on early F9 flights. Do you have a citation for that? I've been following SpaceX since the F1 days and never heard of Draco being used in that function.
-Slide 31 says Falcon Heavy is "still currently" in design. "Still" and "currently" mean almost the same thing; I'd delete "still."


General note: I find Random and inconsistent Capitalization a Distraction. I would suggest restricting capitalization to the standard first words and proper nouns.

All of this will be implemented/corrected/fixed. The reason for the capitalization issues was because i kept debating what should be capitalized. But i'll spend some time going back and fixing these issues. Will release the updated version later today.
Twitter: @baserunner0723
Beginners Guide to SpaceX: http://bit.ly/2jj8rqv

Offline OneSpeed

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Liked: 855
  • Likes Given: 689
Re: A Beginners Guide To (almost) Everything SpaceX (PDF)
« Reply #23 on: 11/16/2017 12:02 PM »
Slide 8 says the v1.1 had 60% more thrust and weight than v1.0. Wouldn't increasing weight the same amount as thrust eliminate the benefit of increasing the thrust. I don't have the numbers, but suspect that weight growth was less than thrust increase from v1.0 to v1.1.

If the thrust and mass increase together, then you are simply scaling up the rocket. You will be getting more mass, and more payload to orbit. Mass growth has actually been greater than thrust growth so far:

Falcon 9 version1.0 1.11.2 Block 11.2 Block 4
Relative thrust1.0 5,885/4,940 = 1.196,806/4,940 = 1.387,607/4,940 = 1.54
Relative mass1.0 505,846/333,400 = 1.52549,054/333,400 = 1.65549,054/333,400 = 1.65

Edit: So, v1.1 'had 20% more thrust and 50% more weight' than 1.0 would be more accurate.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2017 08:17 PM by OneSpeed »

Offline smndk

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 92
  • Denmark
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: A Beginners Guide To (almost) Everything SpaceX (PDF)
« Reply #24 on: 11/16/2017 12:41 PM »
Great work.

I have one comment: I do not believe that the AMOS-6 failure were due to overpressurization of the second stage. The cause were far more complex. Someone can probably explain it much better, but I believe it were due to oxygen solidifying inside the carbon composite of the helium tanks COPVs. This due to design and propellant loading speed and temperature.

/Svend

That is correct and i believe the solid oxygen caused the helium tanks to expand and rupture, thus causing over pressurization. I could be wrong though. May have to rewatch Scott Manley's video :P

I believe that in the end it was due to friction igniting the oxygen. Not overpressurization. Below is a link to SpaceX announcing their findings:

http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates
« Last Edit: 11/16/2017 12:44 PM by smndk »

Offline basedoesgames

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Jared-Base - Amateur Photographer
  • Orlando, FL
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: A Beginners Guide To (almost) Everything SpaceX (PDF)
« Reply #25 on: 11/16/2017 01:02 PM »
Great presentation, but since you asked for feedback ...
<grabs blue pencil>
-Slide 4 says Falcon 1 was an "expendable rocket design." It was an expendable rocket, "design" just confuses the issue.
-Slide 5 says there were 4 Falcon 9 v1.0 launches, but there were 5, as is correctly noted on slide 6.
-Slide 8 says the v1.1 had 60% more thrust and weight than v1.0. Wouldn't increasing weight the same amount as thrust eliminate the benefit of increasing the thrust. I don't have the numbers, but suspect that weight growth was less than thrust increase from v1.0 to v1.1.
-Slide 16 says SLC-40 is "on at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station." Here "on" and "at" are redundant and "the" is unnecessary.
-Slide 18 has 3 instances of "SLC-40" where "SLC-4" is intended.
-Slide 19 says Boca Chica will be operational "no later than late 2018." Do you mean "no earlier than?" There is a bunch of work to be done there (about 99%l of it) and "late 2018" is only 13 months away.
-Slide 23 says SpaceX owns the ASDSes. I believe those are leased, not owned.
-Slide 29 includes the Merlin 1B engine that was planned but never produced.
-Slide 30 says Draco thrusters were used for attitude control on early F9 flights. Do you have a citation for that? I've been following SpaceX since the F1 days and never heard of Draco being used in that function.
-Slide 31 says Falcon Heavy is "still currently" in design. "Still" and "currently" mean almost the same thing; I'd delete "still."


General note: I find Random and inconsistent Capitalization a Distraction. I would suggest restricting capitalization to the standard first words and proper nouns.

"-Slide 30 says Draco thrusters were used for attitude control on early F9 flights. Do you have a citation for that? I've been following SpaceX since the F1 days and never heard of Draco being used in that function."

Here is the quote from the Wikipedia Page: "These engines were also used on early Falcon 9 upper stages to provide attitude control, but more recent versions now use nitrogen cold gas thrusters in place of Dracos" (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco_(rocket_engine_family) )

-Slide 23 says SpaceX owns the ASDSes. I believe those are leased, not owned.
SpaceX contracted contracted a Louisiana Shipyard to build them both.

Still working on correcting issues and will be fixing Capitalization issues too.

Twitter: @baserunner0723
Beginners Guide to SpaceX: http://bit.ly/2jj8rqv

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2334
  • Liked: 508
  • Likes Given: 226
Re: A Beginners Guide To (almost) Everything SpaceX (PDF)
« Reply #26 on: 11/16/2017 01:17 PM »
Quote
Slide 4 says Falcon 1 was an "expendable rocket design."

The first stage was designed from the outset to be recoverable, though this was never achieved.

Offline old_sellsword

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: A Beginners Guide To (almost) Everything SpaceX (PDF)
« Reply #27 on: 11/16/2017 01:46 PM »
Here is the quote from the Wikipedia Page: "These engines were also used on early Falcon 9 upper stages to provide attitude control, but more recent versions now use nitrogen cold gas thrusters in place of Dracos" (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco_(rocket_engine_family) )

Thatís wrong, they never used Dracos for attitude control on any version of Falcon 9. That was only planned for the Block 2 revision of v1.0, which never flew and was overridden by the debut of v1.1.

All F9 upper stages have used Nitrogen cold gas thrusters.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4624
  • Liked: 2549
  • Likes Given: 1395
Re: A Beginners Guide To (almost) Everything SpaceX (PDF)
« Reply #28 on: 11/16/2017 01:49 PM »
Great work.

I have one comment: I do not believe that the AMOS-6 failure were due to overpressurization of the second stage. The cause were far more complex. Someone can probably explain it much better, but I believe it were due to oxygen solidifying inside the carbon composite of the helium tanks COPVs. This due to design and propellant loading speed and temperature.

/Svend

That is correct and i believe the solid oxygen caused the helium tanks to expand and rupture, thus causing over pressurization. I could be wrong though. May have to rewatch Scott Manley's video :P

I believe that in the end it was due to friction igniting the oxygen. Not overpressurization. Below is a link to SpaceX announcing their findings:

http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates

In a presentation intended for very non-spaceflight-geek audience, I would simply say: "An upper stage helium bottle exploded, destroying the rocket and payload."

The exact technical cause of the explosion and the source of the ignition are far beyond the required level of detail.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4624
  • Liked: 2549
  • Likes Given: 1395
Re: A Beginners Guide To (almost) Everything SpaceX (PDF)
« Reply #29 on: 11/16/2017 01:53 PM »
-Slide 23 says SpaceX owns the ASDSes. I believe those are leased, not owned.
SpaceX contracted contracted a Louisiana Shipyard to build them both.

They were "built" by modifying existing barges, which were leased. The distinction is probably unnecessary here, as you can just say "SpaceX has 2 droneships".

Offline basedoesgames

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Jared-Base - Amateur Photographer
  • Orlando, FL
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: A Beginners Guide To (almost) Everything SpaceX (PDF)
« Reply #30 on: 11/16/2017 04:29 PM »
The PDF has been updated.

Whats new?
It now includes Dragon
Fixed capitalization
Corrected some misinformation 

Word Count: 1362
Twitter: @baserunner0723
Beginners Guide to SpaceX: http://bit.ly/2jj8rqv

Offline ludovic_f

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • France
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: A Beginners Guide To (almost) Everything SpaceX (PDF)
« Reply #31 on: 11/17/2017 07:13 AM »
Great work there basedoesgames!

I didn't catch anything obvious that wasn't already reported before the engine section: you are not mentionning the Super Draco at all.

But all else is very nicely put!

Offline basedoesgames

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Jared-Base - Amateur Photographer
  • Orlando, FL
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: A Beginners Guide To (almost) Everything SpaceX (PDF)
« Reply #32 on: 11/17/2017 12:14 PM »
Great work there basedoesgames!

I didn't catch anything obvious that wasn't already reported before the engine section: you are not mentionning the Super Draco at all.

But all else is very nicely put!

I do mention SuperDraco but i could include the specs for it. I'll put that in the next update. Thanks by the way!
Twitter: @baserunner0723
Beginners Guide to SpaceX: http://bit.ly/2jj8rqv

Offline tleski

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 268
  • Likes Given: 364
Re: A Beginners Guide To (almost) Everything SpaceX (PDF)
« Reply #33 on: 11/17/2017 12:49 PM »
Could you include Kestrel engine for completeness? It was used on Falcon 1 second stage.
The guide looks really nice, thanks for your effort!
« Last Edit: 11/17/2017 12:49 PM by tleski »

Offline basedoesgames

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Jared-Base - Amateur Photographer
  • Orlando, FL
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: A Beginners Guide To (almost) Everything SpaceX (PDF)
« Reply #34 on: 11/17/2017 02:27 PM »
Updated PDF

Whats New?
Stats for SuperDraco
Kestrel Engine

Thank You all for the input so far. Maybe i'll have to make a guide for ULA :P That'd be a long one
Twitter: @baserunner0723
Beginners Guide to SpaceX: http://bit.ly/2jj8rqv

Offline Formica

  • Rocket Boi
  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Richmond, CA
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 434
Re: A Beginners Guide To (almost) Everything SpaceX (PDF)
« Reply #35 on: 11/17/2017 06:46 PM »
This is turning into a good SpaceX primer  :)

Errata:

Slide "South Texas Launch Site". It is more accurate to say that Boca Chica is licensed for twelve launches, of which two may be Falcon Heavy launches; they are not licensed for fourteen launches in total. It is quite likely that Boca Chica will technically be able to support (the verbage you currently use) much more than the twelve launches they're currently licensed for. Nitpicky, but you did ask for feedback  :) Looking forward to seeing this tuned up, I'll start tossing it at folks who ask me what this SpaceX thing is all about. Thank you for creating it!
I'm just a space fan, please correct me if I'm wrong!

Offline c4fusion

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Sleeper Service
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: A Beginners Guide To (almost) Everything SpaceX (PDF)
« Reply #36 on: 11/22/2017 07:25 AM »
Since you mentioned what SLC-40 and Vandenberg were once used for, you should also mention that 39A is a historic launch pad where the Shuttle and Apollo missions (Saturn V) were launched.  Also the propulsive landing has been nixed for the dragon 2.  There are no longer any legs for it.  Otherwise, I like it, simple and to the point.

Offline SpacedX

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Gatineau
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: A Beginners Guide To (almost) Everything SpaceX (PDF)
« Reply #37 on: 11/22/2017 10:29 PM »
Great work.

From slide 1's note of Not To Scale, I looked it up and it is now obvious what the latest version's size is.

With that in mind, could you take the title and put it at top (and shift left as required)? This might provide you with space to provide actual scale pictures.

Thanks for the effort.


Offline Beittil

About that Boca Chica slide... the overview images contains imaginary 2nd and 3rd launch pads + landing zones. These were all 'fan-fiction', might want to use the 'official' overview with just the one hanger/launch pad as it is currently in the EIS/design.

Offline CLCalver

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Ontario
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A Beginners Guide To (almost) Everything SpaceX (PDF)
« Reply #39 on: 11/24/2017 11:26 AM »
On your first F9 page you show the 3x3 configuration for the engines, but you refer to Falcon 1. You should change it to Falcon 9 Version 1.0
Chris

PS: I really like your document. Great idea!
« Last Edit: 11/24/2017 11:37 AM by CLCalver »

Tags: