Space X and their rocket malfunction

Its gone very quiet on this front recently. Did they find the issue and take
steps to be sure it never happened again?

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)

In article ,
says...

Its gone very quiet on this front recently. Did they find the issue and take
steps to be sure it never happened again?

They have solved the helium tank strut issue by switching manufacturers
(the original strut failed because it did not meet the spec) and they
will perform acceptance testing on every strut they receive.

They have also used the stand-down to perform a "deep dive" into the
engineering of Falcon 9 in an attempt to find other areas which need
improvement.

This is not unlike what happened after the Challenger disaster inside
NASA and at all of the shuttle contractors. Not only did the problem
with the SRB field joint get solved, but there were *several* other
issues which were brought to light and improved, all of which could have
led to loss of the orbiter and crew.

The next Falcon 9 flight will be the "full thrust" version, with
improved performance. This was always "in the pipeline" and just so
happened that now is the time for it to fly. So, this next flight will
not only be a "return to flight", but will also be the first ever flight
of the "full thrust" version.

The next flight will be a nail-biter for sure.

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

I was always taught that to change more than one thing at a time was
unwise. If you do that in electronic design, or software, yu deserve to get
your fingers burned. I suppose its OK if you can test all the changes
individually, but I suspect in this case cost and time are probably driving
the path here.
Unfortunately, quality control can be a nightmare when you are relying on
contractors who, on paper perform to the same spec, but humans make errors.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Its gone very quiet on this front recently. Did they find the issue and
take
steps to be sure it never happened again?

They have solved the helium tank strut issue by switching manufacturers
(the original strut failed because it did not meet the spec) and they
will perform acceptance testing on every strut they receive.

They have also used the stand-down to perform a "deep dive" into the
engineering of Falcon 9 in an attempt to find other areas which need
improvement.

This is not unlike what happened after the Challenger disaster inside
NASA and at all of the shuttle contractors. Not only did the problem
with the SRB field joint get solved, but there were *several* other
issues which were brought to light and improved, all of which could have
led to loss of the orbiter and crew.

The next Falcon 9 flight will be the "full thrust" version, with
improved performance. This was always "in the pipeline" and just so
happened that now is the time for it to fly. So, this next flight will
not only be a "return to flight", but will also be the first ever flight
of the "full thrust" version.

The next flight will be a nail-biter for sure.

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

In article ,
says...

I was always taught that to change more than one thing at a time was
unwise. If you do that in electronic design, or software, yu deserve to get
your fingers burned. I suppose its OK if you can test all the changes
individually, but I suspect in this case cost and time are probably driving
the path here.
Unfortunately, quality control can be a nightmare when you are relying on
contractors who, on paper perform to the same spec, but humans make errors.

True, but in this case the failed helium tank strut was a clear single
point of failure which was easily solved. That and it was not really a
design variable; it was much more of a quality control problem.

Also, changing more than one thing on a launcher is quite common.
Saturn V evolved quite a bit over its short lifetime, to the point that
no one Saturn V was quite the same as any other.

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

In article om,
says...

On 2015-11-01 04:39, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Its gone very quiet on this front recently. Did they find the issue and take
steps to be sure it never happened again?


I don't have the link but on Friday, NASA released the report on the
Antares failure at Wallops. Basically failed turbopump in one engine
that caused it to explode and rest exploded. Range safety was activated
to help reduce damage, but still destroyed the launch pad.



That's what you get when you use 40+ year old Russian engines that no
one in the US truly understands. This was truly penny wise, but pound
foolish.

Next one will b on Delta 4 and after that, they plan on using newer
generation of russian engines.

Atlas V. Delta IV costs too damn much and is being phased out by ULA.

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

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

I was always taught that to change more than one thing at a time was
unwise. If you do that in electronic design, or software, yu deserve to
get
your fingers burned. I suppose its OK if you can test all the changes
individually, but I suspect in this case cost and time are probably
driving
the path here.
Unfortunately, quality control can be a nightmare when you are relying
on
contractors who, on paper perform to the same spec, but humans make
errors.

True, but in this case the failed helium tank strut was a clear single
point of failure which was easily solved. That and it was not really a
design variable; it was much more of a quality control problem.

Also, changing more than one thing on a launcher is quite common.
Saturn V evolved quite a bit over its short lifetime, to the point that
no one Saturn V was quite the same as any other.

Jeff

You know I've been thinking about that a lot lately with programming.

The difference is, I can change a line of code and recompile and test in a
matter of minutes for the cost of a few dollars.

We can't do the same with rockets.

And the reason we made it to the Moon on time was because in part of the
switch to the all-up testing.
Risky, yeah, but sometimes the choices are limited.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article om,
says...

On 2015-11-01 04:39, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Its gone very quiet on this front recently. Did they find the issue and
take
steps to be sure it never happened again?


I don't have the link but on Friday, NASA released the report on the
Antares failure at Wallops. Basically failed turbopump in one engine
that caused it to explode and rest exploded. Range safety was activated
to help reduce damage, but still destroyed the launch pad.



That's what you get when you use 40+ year old Russian engines that no
one in the US truly understands. This was truly penny wise, but pound
foolish.


Yeah, not a great idea.


Next one will b on Delta 4 and after that, they plan on using newer
generation of russian engines.

Atlas V. Delta IV costs too damn much and is being phased out by ULA.

Jeff

But I thought Delta IV and Atlas V were supposed to compete with each other
and drive down costs!

Next you're going to tell me there's no Santa Claus!


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

Atlas V. Delta IV costs too damn much and is being phased out by ULA.

But I thought Delta IV and Atlas V were supposed to compete with each other
and drive down costs!

And when that didn't work, bringing them together under ULA, essentially
as a monopoly, was supposed to drive down launch costs too.

Next you're going to tell me there's no Santa Claus!

There has to be, NORAD tracks him every year! The government wouldn't
lie to us, would it? ;-)

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