SpaceX Falcon 9 ? Possible Explosion

Jeff Findley explained :

Here is an article for reference:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/lau...o-upper-stage-
explosion-after-falcon-9-v11-launch-spacex-says

Mind the wrap.

http://tinyurl.com/spacexVF9-2nd

/dps

--
"I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

Rick Jones used his keyboard to write :
David Spain wrote:
On 10/1/2013 4:11 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/lau...ch-spacex-says


How 'bout those amateur astronomers?
Love that photo, good catch...

Did SpaceX say anything about why a halo? Is that supposed to be from
the controlled venting, or is the insulation they suggested fell-off
expected to make a ring like that? Or is it supposed to be simply an
atmospheric effect?

The insulation is supposed to have seperated in pieces, accounting for
the additional tracking targets, per the company statement in the
article. They don't discuss the halo in the quotes.

But as Jeff said earlier (or in SSH), the planned restart did not
occur.

/dps

--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013

In article mn.0d657dda57f839f1.127094@snitoo,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on 10/1/2013 :

The latest I heard is that SpaceX is saying that the second stage did
*not* "explode". In the technical sense that statement may be true.
But, the empirical evidence would seem to indicate that the stage is now
in several pieces and that it vented its fuel in a spherical pattern.

I guess this isn't a reusable stage.

Not yet. It's my understanding that the primary reason for relighting
the second stage engine is because this is a capability needed for
future payloads. It would also be needed, eventually, for reuse of the
second stage, but SpaceX is focusing most of their "reuse" efforts on
the first stage. This makes sense, because the first stage has 90% of
the main engines of a Falcon 9.

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

On 10/2/2013 8:18 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article mn.0d657dda57f839f1.127094@snitoo,
says...
I guess this isn't a reusable stage.

Not yet. It's my understanding that the primary reason for relighting
the second stage engine is because this is a capability needed for
future payloads. It would also be needed, eventually, for reuse of the
second stage, but SpaceX is focusing most of their "reuse" efforts on
the first stage. This makes sense, because the first stage has 90% of
the main engines of a Falcon 9.

Jeff


And from what I've read 75% of the cost.

Dave

On 10/1/2013 10:42 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:

That's what venting has looked like in other launches, too. There have
been many "UFO" reports which ended up being upper stages looking just
like that one.

Brian


Brian,

Where those other launches SpaceX launches? I've read elsewhere about
speculation that a normal venting procedure should leave streamer trails
or spiral trails, not spherical ones.

Not sure what to believe.

Dave

David Spain wrote:
On 10/2/2013 8:18 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
but SpaceX is focusing most of their "reuse" efforts on the first
stage. This makes sense, because the first stage has 90% of the
main engines of a Falcon 9.

And from what I've read 75% of the cost.

Why that small a fraction? I would have thought that engines would be
comparatively more expensive than tankage?

rick jones
--
It is not a question of half full or empty - the glass has a leak.
The real question is "Can it be patched?"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On 10/2/2013 12:06 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
David Spain wrote:
On 10/2/2013 8:18 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
but SpaceX is focusing most of their "reuse" efforts on the first
stage. This makes sense, because the first stage has 90% of the
main engines of a Falcon 9.

And from what I've read 75% of the cost.

Why that small a fraction? I would have thought that engines would be
comparatively more expensive than tankage?

rick jones


That 75% figure comes from Musk. See para. 7 in article below:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...e-boost-stage/

For a vehicle like Falcon 9 Heavy, if the strap ons and central booster
were to become some day recoverable that figure would be higher I would
presume.

However, at some point costs must shift from what it takes to bend metal
to other areas. As you go up the stack, you're spending more on things
other than tankage and engines that I suspect are more expensive to
manufacture which lowers the percentage of recovered cost.

Certainly the payload falls into this category. At least for everything
short of an X37-B.

Dave

In article ,
says...

David Spain wrote:
On 10/2/2013 8:18 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
but SpaceX is focusing most of their "reuse" efforts on the first
stage. This makes sense, because the first stage has 90% of the
main engines of a Falcon 9.

And from what I've read 75% of the cost.

Why that small a fraction? I would have thought that engines would be
comparatively more expensive than tankage?

Upper stages always seem to cost more than you'd think due to the added
complexity of things like in flight starting of the upper stage engine,
in orbit attitude control, longer term fuel/oxidizer storage, upper
stage engine restarts, and etc.

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

Originally Posted by Snidely

Jeff Findley wrote on 10/1/2013 :
In article ,
says...

On 10/1/2013 11:15 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
This is something that should*not* happen.

What should not happen?

SpaceX is going to have some explaining to do...

Explain what?

The latest I heard is that SpaceX is saying that the second stage did
*not* "explode". In the technical sense that statement may be true.
But, the empirical evidence would seem to indicate that the stage is now
in several pieces and that it vented its fuel in a spherical pattern.

I guess this isn't a reusable stage.

/dps

--
There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it
does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are
the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us
ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)

Not any more anyway. . .

On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 11:05:04 -0400, David Spain
wrote:


Where those other launches SpaceX launches? I've read elsewhere about
speculation that a normal venting procedure should leave streamer trails
or spiral trails, not spherical ones.

If the stage is tumbling (which could be a product of venting), it
wouldn't be a streamer, it would be a pinwheel, which could easily
look like a spherical cloud from the ground.

Brian