Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION  (Read 633410 times)

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9226
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4465
  • Likes Given: 1101
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #1520 on: 01/31/2013 09:39 pm »
I don't care what you call it, but explaining what happened by saying "there was a sudden loss of pressure" is *not* explaining what caused that to happen. Root cause, any ideas? If not, keep looking.

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36187
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18745
  • Likes Given: 400
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #1521 on: 01/31/2013 11:03 pm »
The engine lost pressure by releasing gas, hence, there was an increase in pressure and it blew the panels off.  They were not "sucked"in. 
« Last Edit: 01/31/2013 11:10 pm by Jim »

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12849
  • N. California
  • Liked: 12119
  • Likes Given: 1337
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #1522 on: 02/01/2013 12:11 am »
The engine lost pressure by releasing gas, hence, there was an increase in pressure and it blew the panels off.  They were not "sucked"in. 

That's interesting, I was wondering what happened.  Do you have a source?

The formal line that I saw was that the fairing cannot sustain max-Q if there isn't a working engine under it, and so *it is inferred* that aerodynamic loads tore it apart after the engine broke.

I'd love to know if there's evidence that the engine blow out (hey - can we use "blow out"?  I like that term) knocked the fairing outwards against the flow.

But if there isn't any - why assume the opposite of what they said?

The reason I tend to believe their line is that a) why lie on such a detail, and b) if IIUC, the fuel under the fuel dome is still liquid.  Liquids don't store pressure energy very well.  (This is why you fill pressure vessels with water in burst tests)
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36187
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18745
  • Likes Given: 400
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #1523 on: 02/01/2013 01:42 am »
The engine lost pressure by releasing gas, hence, there was an increase in pressure and it blew the panels off.  They were not "sucked"in. 

That's interesting, I was wondering what happened.  Do you have a source?

The formal line that I saw was that the fairing cannot sustain max-Q if there isn't a working engine under it, and so *it is inferred* that aerodynamic loads tore it apart after the engine broke.

I'd love to know if there's evidence that the engine blow out (hey - can we use "blow out"?  I like that term) knocked the fairing outwards against the flow.

There is nothing that says "pressure loss" in the aft compartment resulted in the loss of panels.  It is saying that pressure loss in the engine led to loss of panels.  The pressure loss in the engine is from a release of pressure and where does it go?

Read here:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-stay-minor-issues-falcon-9-investigation/

"The first stage issue related to Engine 1, one of nine Merlin 1Cs, after – it is understood – the fuel dome above the nozzle ruptured. The engine did not explode, but did cause the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads to rupture and fall away from the vehicle due to the engine pressure release."

Think people.  There isn't outside pressure on a surface parallel to the flow, in fact, it is the opposite, there is lower pressure.
« Last Edit: 02/01/2013 01:46 am by Jim »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9226
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4465
  • Likes Given: 1101
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #1524 on: 02/01/2013 01:44 am »
"The first stage issue related to Engine 1, one of nine Merlin 1Cs, after – it is understood – the fuel dome above the nozzle ruptured.

Why did the fuel dome rupture?

I can play this game all day.

They haven't identified the root cause, which means it could happen again.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline dcporter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
  • Liked: 257
  • Likes Given: 414
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #1525 on: 02/01/2013 02:09 am »
Yay pointless semantics arguments. It exploded. It also held together to a large extent (telemetry) and disassembled itself in a planned way.

The engine lost pressure by releasing gas, hence, there was an increase in pressure and it blew the panels off.  They were not "sucked"in. 

True. But SpaceX doesn't get any extra credit since those panels were designed to blow off?

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12849
  • N. California
  • Liked: 12119
  • Likes Given: 1337
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #1526 on: 02/01/2013 03:57 am »
"The first stage issue related to Engine 1, one of nine Merlin 1Cs, after – it is understood – the fuel dome above the nozzle ruptured.

I can play this game all day.

They haven't identified the root cause, which means it could happen again.


This is the most important question, there is no argument about that.
But while we're waiting for an answer, we're looking at what happened afterwards, just for kicks.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12849
  • N. California
  • Liked: 12119
  • Likes Given: 1337
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #1527 on: 02/01/2013 04:37 am »
The engine lost pressure by releasing gas, hence, there was an increase in pressure and it blew the panels off.  They were not "sucked"in. 

That's interesting, I was wondering what happened.  Do you have a source?

The formal line that I saw was that the fairing cannot sustain max-Q if there isn't a working engine under it, and so *it is inferred* that aerodynamic loads tore it apart after the engine broke.

I'd love to know if there's evidence that the engine blow out (hey - can we use "blow out"?  I like that term) knocked the fairing outwards against the flow.

There is nothing that says "pressure loss" in the aft compartment resulted in the loss of panels.  It is saying that pressure loss in the engine led to loss of panels.  The pressure loss in the engine is from a release of pressure and where does it go?

Read here:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/dragon-iss-stay-minor-issues-falcon-9-investigation/

"The first stage issue related to Engine 1, one of nine Merlin 1Cs, after – it is understood – the fuel dome above the nozzle ruptured. The engine did not explode, but did cause the fairing that protects the engine from aerodynamic loads to rupture and fall away from the vehicle due to the engine pressure release."

Think people.  There isn't outside pressure on a surface parallel to the flow, in fact, it is the opposite, there is lower pressure.

I don't know what happened to the fairing, but it's definitely not a "think people" no-brainer.  I didn't invent the speculation that the fairing is supported from below by engine pressure, though I don't have a reference to the source of that.

The corner fairing sticks out of the main body cross-section quite a bit, and this was near max-Q, so I would actually expect an inwards/downwards force on it.

Anyway, it's really unimportant.  Liquid fuel came out of the dome, and either it knocked the fairing out, or the fairing collapsed.  Same difference.  Now that I realize the fuel was liquid, I don't even want to call it a blow-out, not to mention an explosion.  It is exactly what SpaceX said - loss in pressure.

(btw - a Merlin consumes ~80 lb of propellant per second, says the internet, out of which about 1/4 by mass is fuel?  If the shut-off happened within 0.1 seconds of the pressure drop-off (WAG), we're talking about 2 pounds of liquid still supplied at pressure.  And since there's no nozzle but rather a breaking wall, why would the speed of the fuel be much?)

Like I said before - unless you show a better source than SpaceX's statement, I'll continue to go by what they say, or as you call it, drinking the sweet red stuff.

And as QG keeps saying - what's really important is figuring out why the dome failed.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 676
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #1528 on: 02/01/2013 05:22 am »
"The first stage issue related to Engine 1, one of nine Merlin 1Cs, after – it is understood – the fuel dome above the nozzle ruptured.

Why did the fuel dome rupture?

I can play this game all day.

They haven't identified the root cause, which means it could happen again.

Correction, they have not *announced* that they have found the root cause. There is significant difference. They do not need to release any more info to the public than they have to, and they certainly won't release more info then they have to if they feel that such information would be used against them - if that is the case. As long as NASA is happy, we'll just have to be happy with what we get.

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3620
  • 92129
  • Liked: 1136
  • Likes Given: 359
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #1529 on: 02/01/2013 11:16 am »
Well, this is a speculation thread so why don't we speculate about why the dome might have failed? The answer we have been given is somewhat circular, it is:

The operational lifetime of the dome due to testing and flight was exceeded by the time on the engine.

Or, the time on the engine, due to testing and flight, exceeded the operational lifetime of the dome.

Since no one flys an engine that has exceeded its design lifetime, the failure seems to have resulted from the difference between "operational" and "design" lifetimes.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36187
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18745
  • Likes Given: 400
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #1530 on: 02/01/2013 11:25 am »

Like I said before - unless you show a better source than SpaceX's statement, I'll continue to go by what they say, or as you call it, drinking the sweet red stuff.


They haven't said anything.  Also, no one has said only fuel was released.

This is why your posts have less credibility
« Last Edit: 02/01/2013 11:26 am by Jim »

Offline peter-b

  • Dr. Peter Brett
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
  • Oxford, UK
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 74
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #1531 on: 02/01/2013 12:15 pm »
They haven't said anything.  Also, no one has said only fuel was released.

This is why your posts have less credibility
Just as much credibility as your claims that SpaceX are deliberately and purposefully lying in their press statements, Jim.
Research Scientist (Sensors), Sharp Laboratories of Europe, UK

Offline go4mars

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3748
  • Earth
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 3463
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #1532 on: 02/01/2013 12:31 pm »
Liquid fuel came out of the dome... Now that I realize the fuel was liquid... It is exactly what SpaceX said - loss in pressure.
It seems to me that a fluid was liberated from the higher pressure fuel dome to the relatively lower pressure area outside of the fuel dome (thus increasing the pressure of the area outside of the fuel dome).  This increase in pressure in the area outside of the fuel dome caused a fluid liberation event to the lower pressure area outside of the engine shroud. 

Just to be `that guy` because I feel the semantics are very unimportant here:  The best technical terms are `Rapid Unexpected Fluid Liberation Event (RUFLE)` or `Pressure Always from Higher to Lowest Through Ruptures`(PAHLTR). 

Anyway, it's really unimportant.
Elasmotherium; hurlyburly Doggerlandic Jentilak steeds insouciantly gallop in viridescent taiga, eluding deluginal Burckle's abyssal excavation.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36187
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18745
  • Likes Given: 400
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #1533 on: 02/01/2013 01:03 pm »
They haven't said anything.  Also, no one has said only fuel was released.

This is why your posts have less credibility
Just as much credibility as your claims that SpaceX are deliberately and purposefully lying in their press statements, Jim.

Please point out where I said they are lying. 
« Last Edit: 02/01/2013 01:04 pm by Jim »

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #1534 on: 02/01/2013 01:15 pm »
Everyone we've been through this whole conversation before, do we have to repeat it?
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8704
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1206
  • Likes Given: 294
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #1535 on: 02/01/2013 02:38 pm »
Personally, I think Jim doing a wonderful job explaining what happened.

So if you have thrown your diner in a pressure cooker and the little pressure relief valve clogs, when the fuel dome, ...eeer lid fly's off coating your entire kitchen with diner, do you call it the lid flying off, or something else.

This is the same thing that is going here, the fuel dome did something similar (except you had torn metal), the word being used is failed, just like a pressure cooker lid flying off, the word failed under values how nasty this failure is. Very high pressure liquids (Kero and LOX) where released in large quantities inside the engine compartment. The loss of pressure was sensed and the turbo shut down, preventing an overspeed and an even worse RUD.

What has not been answered (and probably not possible without recovery, hence a lack of root cause) was what section of the fuel dome failed. Did the wall on it fail somewhere, did the weld between it and the combustion chamber fail dropping the whole combustion chamber in the ocean, ect? We do not know, SpaceX has said they have telemetry from after the event, does that mean all the sensors remained working, including pressure sensors on the combustion chamber, hence major parts did not fall off?
« Last Edit: 02/01/2013 04:03 pm by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8704
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1206
  • Likes Given: 294
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #1536 on: 02/01/2013 02:39 pm »
btw. Jim, I like the balloon analogy.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2724
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 1892
  • Likes Given: 679
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #1537 on: 02/01/2013 05:41 pm »
Personally, I think Jim doing a wonderful job explaining what happened.

So if you have thrown your diner in a pressure cooker and the little pressure relief valve clogs, when the fuel dome, ...eeer lid fly's off coating your entire kitchen with diner, do you call it the lid flying off, or something else.

This is the same thing that is going here, the fuel dome did something similar (except you had torn metal), the word being used is failed, just like a pressure cooker lid flying off, the word failed under values how nasty this failure is. Very high pressure liquids (Kero and LOX) where released in large quantities inside the engine compartment. The loss of pressure was sensed and the turbo shut down, preventing an overspeed and an even worse RUD.

What has not been answered (and probably not possible without recovery, hence a lack of root cause) was what section of the fuel dome failed. Did the wall on it fail somewhere, did the weld between it and the combustion chamber fail dropping the whole combustion chamber in the ocean, ect? We do not know, SpaceX has said they have telemetry from after the event, does that mean all the sensors remained working, including pressure sensors on the combustion chamber, hence major parts did not fall off?

I think we all mostly agree with this. You state you agree with Jim, but Jim keeps stating other more extreme things though.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36187
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18745
  • Likes Given: 400
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #1538 on: 02/01/2013 05:51 pm »
but Jim keeps stating other more extreme things though.

What other more extreme things?
« Last Edit: 02/01/2013 05:53 pm by Jim »

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12849
  • N. California
  • Liked: 12119
  • Likes Given: 1337
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #1539 on: 02/01/2013 08:06 pm »
Personally, I think Jim doing a wonderful job explaining what happened.

So if you have thrown your diner in a pressure cooker and the little pressure relief valve clogs, when the fuel dome, ...eeer lid fly's off coating your entire kitchen with diner, do you call it the lid flying off, or something else.

This is the same thing that is going here, the fuel dome did something similar (except you had torn metal), the word being used is failed, just like a pressure cooker lid flying off, the word failed under values how nasty this failure is. Very high pressure liquids (Kero and LOX) where released in large quantities inside the engine compartment. The loss of pressure was sensed and the turbo shut down, preventing an overspeed and an even worse RUD.

What has not been answered (and probably not possible without recovery, hence a lack of root cause) was what section of the fuel dome failed. Did the wall on it fail somewhere, did the weld between it and the combustion chamber fail dropping the whole combustion chamber in the ocean, ect? We do not know, SpaceX has said they have telemetry from after the event, does that mean all the sensors remained working, including pressure sensors on the combustion chamber, hence major parts did not fall off?

First, it matters a whole lot whether the cooker was 90% full of water or 10% full of water.

The pressure dome was 100% full of liquid propellant, which is the best case.

Second, when I was a kid, I was next to a pressure cooker doing exactly that. Let me tell you - it did not explode, not even close.  It made a hell of a mess on the hood, but did not even knock it away.

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0