Author Topic: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION  (Read 629232 times)

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6528
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1490
  • Likes Given: 1404
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #720 on: 10/08/2012 08:48 pm »
For modemeagle: in your simulations if F9v1 loses thrust from two engines at T+1:20 does the payload reach any orbit at all?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3469
  • Liked: 2865
  • Likes Given: 714
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #721 on: 10/08/2012 08:48 pm »
Folks haven't mentioned this AFAICT, but it's worth noting that the Orbcomm "silence" may in fact be Orbcomm's fault/decision, not SpaceX's.  SpaceX has been very forthcoming about their part of the flight, but they may well have contractual obligations (or just a need to have releases vetted by Orbcomm executives) which prevent them from speaking as freely about the Orbcomm-related aspects of the flight.  Folks here have noted that Orbcomm was in a information blackhole even before the flight, with SpaceX's preflight materials not mentioning the Orbcomm satellite.

Putting on my wild guessing hat, I'd suspect that the Orbcomm delivery was not in fact "nominal" but fell squarely under the terms of service SpaceX was contracted to provide.  Secondary payloads get best-effort delivery, and off-nominal orbit insertion is one of the most likely results.  Orbcomm may or may not have chosen to cover for that possibility with thrust resources on its own satellite (at the expense of a shorter lifetime in-orbit), but that was its own choice.

Orbcomm will need to spin this even more than SpaceX, though.  It knew this was a likely outcome of flying as a secondary payload but the wordsmiths are going to be very busy crafting a press release which all of SpaceX, Orbcomm, Orbcomm's executive which approved flying as a secondary payload, Orbcomm's insurance, and Orbcomm's investors are satisfied with.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 225
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #722 on: 10/08/2012 08:52 pm »
Did you watch the video on that post?  It shows exactly that.  There is a fireball and rise of pressure but usually (for the static fire or pad abort case) the pressure is redirected by the fairing but does not require a safety release.  At Max-Q the loads are different and the response is different.  It's still working as designed.

The OP said that fuel is dumped inside the mold line of the vehicle by design.  I see nothing in the video to support that claim.  It would be a really unsafe design.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Oersted

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2525
  • Liked: 3462
  • Likes Given: 2364
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #723 on: 10/08/2012 08:53 pm »
I would guess that it is an integral part of rocket engine design to ensure that they fail in a progressive and controlled fashion, to the extent possible. Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features? This incident demonstrates the sturdiness engineered into the rockets of SpaceX. Don't think the story is much longer...

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36045
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18540
  • Likes Given: 398
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #724 on: 10/08/2012 08:55 pm »
I would guess that it is an integral part of rocket engine design to ensure that they fail in a progressive and controlled fashion, to the extent possible. Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features? This incident demonstrates the sturdiness engineered into the rockets of SpaceX. Don't think the story is much longer...


Bad engineering.  Cars are going to have many accidents but not rockets

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3469
  • Liked: 2865
  • Likes Given: 714
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #725 on: 10/08/2012 08:57 pm »
I would guess that it is an integral part of rocket engine design to ensure that they fail in a progressive and controlled fashion, to the extent possible. Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features? This incident demonstrates the sturdiness engineered into the rockets of SpaceX. Don't think the story is much longer...


Bad engineering.  Cars are going to have many accidents but not rockets

That's because cars are designed to be reusable.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36061
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 20396
  • Likes Given: 10577
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #726 on: 10/08/2012 09:00 pm »
Folks haven't mentioned this AFAICT, but it's worth noting that the Orbcomm "silence" may in fact be Orbcomm's fault/decision, not SpaceX's.  SpaceX has been very forthcoming about their part of the flight, but they may well have contractual obligations (or just a need to have releases vetted by Orbcomm executives) which prevent them from speaking as freely about the Orbcomm-related aspects of the flight.  Folks here have noted that Orbcomm was in a information blackhole even before the flight, with SpaceX's preflight materials not mentioning the Orbcomm satellite.

Putting on my wild guessing hat, I'd suspect that the Orbcomm delivery was not in fact "nominal" but fell squarely under the terms of service SpaceX was contracted to provide.  Secondary payloads get best-effort delivery, and off-nominal orbit insertion is one of the most likely results.  Orbcomm may or may not have chosen to cover for that possibility with thrust resources on its own satellite (at the expense of a shorter lifetime in-orbit), but that was its own choice.

Orbcomm will need to spin this even more than SpaceX, though.  It knew this was a likely outcome of flying as a secondary payload but the wordsmiths are going to be very busy crafting a press release which all of SpaceX, Orbcomm, Orbcomm's executive which approved flying as a secondary payload, Orbcomm's insurance, and Orbcomm's investors are satisfied with.
Even in a low orbit, Orbcomm can probably spin this as a success to their investors, since the whole point is to demonstrate the viability of the satellite and its function, etc, before they send them all up.
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: 12776
  • N. California
  • Liked: 11978
  • Likes Given: 1332
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #727 on: 10/08/2012 09:01 pm »
I would guess that it is an integral part of rocket engine design to ensure that they fail in a progressive and controlled fashion, to the extent possible. Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features? This incident demonstrates the sturdiness engineered into the rockets of SpaceX. Don't think the story is much longer...


Bad engineering.  Cars are going to have many accidents but not rockets


The difference between a machine that rarely breaks down and a machine that cannot break down is that when the machine that cannot break down breaks down, the consequences are much more severe.

  -- paraphrasing the late and great Douglas Adams
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Remes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 377
  • Germany
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #728 on: 10/08/2012 09:07 pm »
Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features?
I think for the same reason, as 90% of all questions, starting with "why don't we build in..." are rejected: weight.

Offline mrmandias

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • US
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #729 on: 10/08/2012 09:08 pm »
I'm trying to let this thread flow as freely as possible, as there are going to be a lot of differing opinions on this. I have removed a few rude posts.

Don't quote or respond to uncivil posts, report them and a moderator will remove the offending post (if it is a breach of rules).

I'll write a new article on this when we have enough info to hand. I'm working on that in L2.

Thanks, and looking  forward to the article.

Offline johnbellora

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #730 on: 10/08/2012 09:09 pm »
the 2nd stage ran to low on fuel for what ever reason and the orbit is now in an elleptical orbit to low and the average is even with the space station. It will decay soon and plumet back to earth. The powers that be are going to try to use the remaining fuel to steer it into a more circular orbit which might get it to last a few months. I actually have a large triplexer aboard. Interesting to hear from both sides as to what is going on.

Offline Garrett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1122
  • France
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #731 on: 10/08/2012 09:10 pm »
Should we start a new thread full of apologies for those who guaranteed there was an explosion? Or just sweep that under the rug?
Can I +1 this and suggest that we not sweep it under the rug?
I'm not a big fan of letting people forget how absurd they come across when they assert speculation masked as fact.
That also goes for those who started and stoked the GNC door rumour.

*grumbles in his armchair*

Edit: am mildly tempted to snark about "luck" comments. Hmmm, maybe I just did.
« Last Edit: 10/08/2012 09:18 pm by Garrett »
- "Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." - Indiana Jones

Offline leetdan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
  • Space Coast
  • Liked: 298
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #732 on: 10/08/2012 09:13 pm »
the 2nd stage ran to low on fuel for what ever reason and the orbit is now in an elleptical orbit to low and the average is even with the space station. It will decay soon and plumet back to earth. The powers that be are going to try to use the remaining fuel to steer it into a more circular orbit which might get it to last a few months. I actually have a large triplexer aboard. Interesting to hear from both sides as to what is going on.

Thanks, are you able to reveal your sources?  And I'm curious, just who are the "both sides" you mention?
« Last Edit: 10/08/2012 09:15 pm by leetdan »

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6111
  • Liked: 4022
  • Likes Given: 3899
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #733 on: 10/08/2012 09:18 pm »
the 2nd stage ran to low on fuel for what ever reason and the orbit is now in an elleptical orbit to low and the average is even with the space station. It will decay soon and plumet back to earth. The powers that be are going to try to use the remaining fuel to steer it into a more circular orbit which might get it to last a few months. I actually have a large triplexer aboard. Interesting to hear from both sides as to what is going on.

Welcome
Best, most informative first post I have seen.

So you are confirming that the Falcon 9 second stage did ignite for the second burn after the Dragon was deployed, contradicting previous reports?

If the second stage is in some intermdiate orbit with an average height around the current ISS altitude (~410 km) do we have an tracking data on it?

edit to add first question
« Last Edit: 10/08/2012 09:19 pm by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36061
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 20396
  • Likes Given: 10577
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #734 on: 10/08/2012 09:18 pm »
the 2nd stage ran to low on fuel for what ever reason and the orbit is now in an elleptical orbit to low and the average is even with the space station. It will decay soon and plumet back to earth. The powers that be are going to try to use the remaining fuel to steer it into a more circular orbit which might get it to last a few months. I actually have a large triplexer aboard. Interesting to hear from both sides as to what is going on.
Thanks for letting us know in changing this from complete speculation to informed speculation!!!

Also it seems like my educated guess ended up not being so far off.
« Last Edit: 10/08/2012 09:21 pm by Robotbeat »
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 john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9845
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2287
  • Likes Given: 12726
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #735 on: 10/08/2012 09:19 pm »
Folks haven't mentioned this AFAICT, but it's worth noting that the Orbcomm "silence" may in fact be Orbcomm's fault/decision, not SpaceX's.  SpaceX has been very forthcoming about their part of the flight, but they may well have contractual obligations (or just a need to have releases vetted by Orbcomm executives) which prevent them from speaking as freely about the Orbcomm-related aspects of the flight.  Folks here have noted that Orbcomm was in a information blackhole even before the flight, with SpaceX's preflight materials not mentioning the Orbcomm satellite.

Putting on my wild guessing hat, I'd suspect that the Orbcomm delivery was not in fact "nominal" but fell squarely under the terms of service SpaceX was contracted to provide.  Secondary payloads get best-effort delivery, and off-nominal orbit insertion is one of the most likely results.  Orbcomm may or may not have chosen to cover for that possibility with thrust resources on its own satellite (at the expense of a shorter lifetime in-orbit), but that was its own choice.
This sounds plausible. IIRC some coverage on the Orbcomm launch (Parabolic arc?) said a 2nd stage 2 burn would take place if *possible* but otherwise the satellite would be deployed at the parking orbit. Which presumably means Orbital can make it work. The satellite is described as a *prototype* 2nd generation Orbcomm, so not hitting it's *exact* orbit should still give them the data to prove out systems functions.

I've been presuming that since no one *seemed* to be worrying about Dragon being off its nominal trajectory to ISS the 2nd stage had to have delivered *enough* delta v to get it on the right vector and therefor the 2nd stage at least on its nominal orbit.
« Last Edit: 10/08/2012 09:30 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap

Online Herb Schaltegger

I would guess that it is an integral part of rocket engine design to ensure that they fail in a progressive and controlled fashion, to the extent possible. Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features? This incident demonstrates the sturdiness engineered into the rockets of SpaceX. Don't think the story is much longer...


Bad engineering.  Cars are going to have many accidents but not rockets

That's because cars are designed to be reusable.

No, it's not. If a car's crumple zone is necessary, that car will never be used again (except for spare parts, perhaps). 

They have crumple zones because there are many orders of magnitude more of them rolling around the streets than there are rockets flying, and thus statistically more likely to crash into one another than rockets are to suffer just the right kind of structural overload that their presence would make any difference.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #737 on: 10/08/2012 09:19 pm »
the 2nd stage ran to low on fuel for what ever reason and the orbit is now in an elleptical orbit to low and the average is even with the space station. It will decay soon and plumet back to earth. The powers that be are going to try to use the remaining fuel to steer it into a more circular orbit which might get it to last a few months. I actually have a large triplexer aboard. Interesting to hear from both sides as to what is going on.

Interesting indeed!  'Preciate the information -- hope it goes well.  :)

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9845
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2287
  • Likes Given: 12726
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #738 on: 10/08/2012 09:41 pm »
I'm not a big fan of letting people forget how absurd they come across when they assert speculation masked as fact.
TBF the video *looked* very serious and an explosion sounded plausible.

I would have gone with "explosion" too except for my natural caution about trusting *anything* where the only evidence is blurry video with poor lighting conditions that lasts a few seconds.


MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap

Offline cambrianera

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 261
Re: SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon CRS SpX-1 MISSION GENERAL DISCUSSION
« Reply #739 on: 10/08/2012 09:41 pm »
About the damage done by the accident, did someone noticed that the view we have of the octopus manifold shows no signs of damage ?
It's few inches away from the engines.
Oh to be young again. . .

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1