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
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 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.
Quote from: smndk on 11/16/2017 10:54 amGreat 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./SvendThat 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
Slide 4 says Falcon 1 was an "expendable rocket design."
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) )
Quote from: basedoesgames on 11/16/2017 11:17 amQuote from: smndk on 11/16/2017 10:54 amGreat 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./SvendThat 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 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
-Slide 23 says SpaceX owns the ASDSes. I believe those are leased, not owned.SpaceX contracted contracted a Louisiana Shipyard to build them both.
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!