A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Latest candidate for SpaceX pad explosion



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 18th 16, 05:23 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Latest candidate for SpaceX pad explosion

While they haven't confirmed it as the cause yet, the current leading
candidate for the cause of the explosion is SOLID oxygen forming in
the composite overwrapped pressure vessel that helium is stored in.

This is how it would work. For this flight SpaceX was apparently
trying to increase the degree of super-cryo chilling on the liquid
oxygen, so they were pumping it even colder than normal (close to
freezing point). Some of the super-chilled LOX could have gotten into
the COPV and then frozen. As tank pressure went up, the solid oxygen
could not be squeezed back out of the overwrap and detonated with the
carbon composite wrapping. This breeched the helium pressurization
tank, overpressuring the LOX tank and things go up from there.

SpaceX has not confirmed that this is their leading theory (or even a
theory). It is being reported as something that came out of a private
conversation with Musk and SpaceX says they have a policy of not
commenting on private conversations by Musk.

If that's really the problem, it makes a return to flight easier. Just
revert to the 'normal' amount of chilling that they used on previous
flights.


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
  #2  
Old October 18th 16, 07:06 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Sylvia Else
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,063
Default Latest candidate for SpaceX pad explosion

On 18/10/2016 3:23 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
While they haven't confirmed it as the cause yet, the current leading
candidate for the cause of the explosion is SOLID oxygen forming in
the composite overwrapped pressure vessel that helium is stored in.

This is how it would work. For this flight SpaceX was apparently
trying to increase the degree of super-cryo chilling on the liquid
oxygen, so they were pumping it even colder than normal (close to
freezing point). Some of the super-chilled LOX could have gotten into
the COPV and then frozen. As tank pressure went up, the solid oxygen
could not be squeezed back out of the overwrap and detonated with the
carbon composite wrapping. This breeched the helium pressurization
tank, overpressuring the LOX tank and things go up from there.

SpaceX has not confirmed that this is their leading theory (or even a
theory). It is being reported as something that came out of a private
conversation with Musk and SpaceX says they have a policy of not
commenting on private conversations by Musk.

If that's really the problem, it makes a return to flight easier. Just
revert to the 'normal' amount of chilling that they used on previous
flights.



Customers might be less than happy with the idea that their production
launch vehicle is being experimented on, though the contract may allow
for that.

Sylvia.
  #3  
Old October 18th 16, 01:31 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Latest candidate for SpaceX pad explosion

In article ,
ess says...

On 18/10/2016 3:23 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
While they haven't confirmed it as the cause yet, the current leading
candidate for the cause of the explosion is SOLID oxygen forming in
the composite overwrapped pressure vessel that helium is stored in.

This is how it would work. For this flight SpaceX was apparently
trying to increase the degree of super-cryo chilling on the liquid
oxygen, so they were pumping it even colder than normal (close to
freezing point). Some of the super-chilled LOX could have gotten into
the COPV and then frozen. As tank pressure went up, the solid oxygen
could not be squeezed back out of the overwrap and detonated with the
carbon composite wrapping. This breeched the helium pressurization
tank, overpressuring the LOX tank and things go up from there.

SpaceX has not confirmed that this is their leading theory (or even a
theory). It is being reported as something that came out of a private
conversation with Musk and SpaceX says they have a policy of not
commenting on private conversations by Musk.

If that's really the problem, it makes a return to flight easier. Just
revert to the 'normal' amount of chilling that they used on previous
flights.



Customers might be less than happy with the idea that their production
launch vehicle is being experimented on, though the contract may allow
for that.


Sylvia, this quite often the case with SpaceX. It's still a young
company and is still optimizing Falcon 9. Unfortunately, when you push
the envelope like this, sometimes an "unknown unknown" bites you in the
ass.

But, look at the usual suspects. ULA has done very little in the way of
innovation related to the EELV's and costs still went up! Why is that?
You'd think if everything was "standardized", costs would come down, but
they didn't.

Orbital ATK is "innovating" a bit, but mostly by seeking out the lowest
bidders for the bits of their liquid fueled stage(es). The rest is
solid stages made in house. I *really* hate solids for launch. Too
much vibration, extremely violent failure modes, can't be economically
reused, and little chance that costs will ever drop by orders of
magnitude. So, on the "solids" side of the house, Orbital ATK isn't
innovating in a way that would ever reduce costs.

The other way to look at this is that if we never innovate, costs will
not come down by the orders of magnitude that is needed for the US to
become a truly space-fairing nation. That's really Musk's long term
goal, to send a truly huge number of people to Mars. This vision is in
stark contrast to NASA's "vision" of sending a handful of NASA
astronauts to Mars (citizens can apply, but will have a snowball's
chance in hell of becoming a NASA astronaut).

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #4  
Old October 19th 16, 01:57 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Sylvia Else
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,063
Default Latest candidate for SpaceX pad explosion

On 18/10/2016 11:31 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
ess says...

On 18/10/2016 3:23 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
While they haven't confirmed it as the cause yet, the current leading
candidate for the cause of the explosion is SOLID oxygen forming in
the composite overwrapped pressure vessel that helium is stored in.

This is how it would work. For this flight SpaceX was apparently
trying to increase the degree of super-cryo chilling on the liquid
oxygen, so they were pumping it even colder than normal (close to
freezing point). Some of the super-chilled LOX could have gotten into
the COPV and then frozen. As tank pressure went up, the solid oxygen
could not be squeezed back out of the overwrap and detonated with the
carbon composite wrapping. This breeched the helium pressurization
tank, overpressuring the LOX tank and things go up from there.

SpaceX has not confirmed that this is their leading theory (or even a
theory). It is being reported as something that came out of a private
conversation with Musk and SpaceX says they have a policy of not
commenting on private conversations by Musk.

If that's really the problem, it makes a return to flight easier. Just
revert to the 'normal' amount of chilling that they used on previous
flights.



Customers might be less than happy with the idea that their production
launch vehicle is being experimented on, though the contract may allow
for that.


Sylvia, this quite often the case with SpaceX. It's still a young
company and is still optimizing Falcon 9. Unfortunately, when you push
the envelope like this, sometimes an "unknown unknown" bites you in the
ass.


Still, its customers might reasonably expect their satellites to be
launched on proven hardware, operated in the proven way, with
experiments involved with innovation done on hardware that isn't
launching an expensive satellite.

But we don't know what the contract says.

Sylvia.
  #5  
Old October 19th 16, 02:48 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rob[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default Latest candidate for SpaceX pad explosion

Sylvia Else wrote:
Still, its customers might reasonably expect their satellites to be
launched on proven hardware, operated in the proven way, with
experiments involved with innovation done on hardware that isn't
launching an expensive satellite.


In some cases, rockets have been qualified by launching dummy satellites
(just a block of concrete or lead of the proper mass), but of course then
some people consider this a waste of resources and a pollution of space.
  #6  
Old October 18th 16, 01:23 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Latest candidate for SpaceX pad explosion

In article ,
says...

While they haven't confirmed it as the cause yet, the current leading
candidate for the cause of the explosion is SOLID oxygen forming in
the composite overwrapped pressure vessel that helium is stored in.

This is how it would work. For this flight SpaceX was apparently
trying to increase the degree of super-cryo chilling on the liquid
oxygen, so they were pumping it even colder than normal (close to
freezing point). Some of the super-chilled LOX could have gotten into
the COPV and then frozen. As tank pressure went up, the solid oxygen
could not be squeezed back out of the overwrap and detonated with the
carbon composite wrapping. This breeched the helium pressurization
tank, overpressuring the LOX tank and things go up from there.

SpaceX has not confirmed that this is their leading theory (or even a
theory). It is being reported as something that came out of a private
conversation with Musk and SpaceX says they have a policy of not
commenting on private conversations by Musk.

If that's really the problem, it makes a return to flight easier. Just
revert to the 'normal' amount of chilling that they used on previous
flights.


Nice summary of the latest theory (saw it on ARocket).

Thanks,
Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #7  
Old October 18th 16, 07:04 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Niels Jørgen Kruse[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Latest candidate for SpaceX pad explosion

Fred J. McCall wrote:

While they haven't confirmed it as the cause yet, the current leading
candidate for the cause of the explosion is SOLID oxygen forming in
the composite overwrapped pressure vessel that helium is stored in.

This is how it would work. For this flight SpaceX was apparently
trying to increase the degree of super-cryo chilling on the liquid
oxygen, so they were pumping it even colder than normal (close to
freezing point). Some of the super-chilled LOX could have gotten into
the COPV and then frozen. As tank pressure went up, the solid oxygen
could not be squeezed back out of the overwrap and detonated with the
carbon composite wrapping. This breeched the helium pressurization
tank, overpressuring the LOX tank and things go up from there.

SpaceX has not confirmed that this is their leading theory (or even a
theory). It is being reported as something that came out of a private
conversation with Musk and SpaceX says they have a policy of not
commenting on private conversations by Musk.

If that's really the problem, it makes a return to flight easier. Just
revert to the 'normal' amount of chilling that they used on previous
flights.


They didn't pressurize helium tanks before loading LOX?

--
Mvh./Regards, Niels Jørgen Kruse, Vanløse, Denmark
  #8  
Old October 19th 16, 04:27 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Latest candidate for SpaceX pad explosion

(Niels Jørgen Kruse) wrote:

Fred J. McCall wrote:

While they haven't confirmed it as the cause yet, the current leading
candidate for the cause of the explosion is SOLID oxygen forming in
the composite overwrapped pressure vessel that helium is stored in.

This is how it would work. For this flight SpaceX was apparently
trying to increase the degree of super-cryo chilling on the liquid
oxygen, so they were pumping it even colder than normal (close to
freezing point). Some of the super-chilled LOX could have gotten into
the COPV and then frozen. As tank pressure went up, the solid oxygen
could not be squeezed back out of the overwrap and detonated with the
carbon composite wrapping. This breeched the helium pressurization
tank, overpressuring the LOX tank and things go up from there.

SpaceX has not confirmed that this is their leading theory (or even a
theory). It is being reported as something that came out of a private
conversation with Musk and SpaceX says they have a policy of not
commenting on private conversations by Musk.

If that's really the problem, it makes a return to flight easier. Just
revert to the 'normal' amount of chilling that they used on previous
flights.


They didn't pressurize helium tanks before loading LOX?


Where the **** did you get that from?

Hint: The pressure in the LOX TANK goes up as you add LOX.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SpaceX failure cause latest Jeff Findley[_6_] Policy 2 July 23rd 15 04:32 PM
SpaceX Falcon 9 ? Possible Explosion Jeff Findley[_2_] Policy 22 October 9th 13 09:54 AM
SpaceX and NASA Host Teleconference Today on SpaceX 2 Mission to Space Station Jeff Findley[_2_] Policy 5 March 4th 13 09:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.