View Single Post
  #8  
Old July 2nd 15, 12:12 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default SpaceX Falcon launch failuer

In article mn.105e7df7ff6201e4.127094@snitoo,
says...

Brian-Gaff noted that:
No gremlins are not bound by the laws of the physical world. they are there
to make sure people do not get too full of themselves and to leave that odd
doubt that superstition has some merit.
Like the number 13 for example.
Still being serious for a moment, I do think its a shame that cargo flights
do not have some kind of fail safe system or even an escape system as by now
there must be a lot of bits of space hardware strewn around the planet in and
out of orbit.


The switch to Dragon 2 may accomplish that, per a comment from SpaceX.
I'm about to wrap up my broadcast day, so the cite will have to wait.


They're also switching to an upgraded Falcon 9 launch vehicle. So
depending on what caused the recent failure in the v1.1 vehicle will
determine how soon v1.2 can fly.

http://aviationweek.com/blog/spacexs-new-spin-falcon-9

v1.2 can lift more payload, so it will be able to carry a wider range of
satellites to orbit. On missions with existing payloads (e.g. cargo
Dragon), it will allow more fuel margins for landings back at Florida.


It's looking, to me anyway, like something in the pressurization system
for the 2nd stage failed and caused the sudden O2 tank overpressure.
Some have even speculated that the cold helium pressurization system
could have caused LOX to condense out of the air which caused a fire
(this speculation based on Musks statement that the failure was
"counterintuitive").

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer