|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX failure investigation update - October 28, 2016
Below are updates regarding the anomaly that occurred in preparation for the AMOS-6 mission: October 28, 4:00pm EDT http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates From above: Through extensive testing in Texas, SpaceX has shown that it can re-create a COPV failure entirely through helium loading conditions. These conditions are mainly affected by the temperature and pressure of the helium being loaded. In other words, there is still hope (as was reported previously by SpaceX) that this is an operational problem, not an engineering design problem. By carefully controlling the temperature and pressure of the helium being loaded inside the helium tank, it should be possible to avoid an accident like this in the future. Also, SpaceX isn't the only company that has had trouble with loading of COPV helium tanks. It can be a bit tricky: Similar issues at Armadillo Aerospace: http://spacefellowship.com/news/art1...ce-2009-lunar- lander-challenge-level-2-done-.html From above: While testing of this configuration, I hit on an idea that wound up being very useful ? we set up a counterflow heat exchanger that ran the lox vent through the outside, and the helium fill through the inside. This let us get significantly more helium in the tanks, and completely quashed any worries about overheating the helium tanks. They actually start to frost over at the beginning. 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
SpaceX failure investigation update - October 28, 2016
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-10-29 07:45, Jeff Findley wrote: http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates From above: Through extensive testing in Texas, SpaceX has shown that it can re-create a COPV failure entirely through helium loading conditions. These conditions are mainly affected by the temperature and pressure of the helium being loaded. The text mentions cryogenic helium. Is helium loaded as gas and pressurized so much that it turns to liquid ? Do you not know what 'cryogenic' means? It means COLD. Or is helium pumped into tank as a liquid, which initially evaporates as it falls into the tank, yieding very cold conditions ? In such a case, is the tank venting while it is loaded ? The COPV is designed, as you've been repeatedly told, to operate at pressures of 10,000 PSI. I doubt there's any venting going on. Or is the helium loaded after LOX has already started to flood the area around the tank ? I'd expect they're loading them at the same time. After all, part of the reason for putting the COPVs inside the LOX tank is thermal control. In other words, there is still hope (as was reported previously by SpaceX) that this is an operational problem, not an engineering design problem. Difficult to know whithout knowing exactly what was done differently on this "flight". All I heard was that they tried to load colder than usual cryos. But was order of loading changed ? Did magic unicorns **** pixie dust into the tanks? Looks to me like SpaceX found conditions that exceed the tank's capabilities. So it will have to do a lot of tests to set new limits on tank performance. How things look to you is irrelevant, given your intellectual myopia. By carefully controlling the temperature and pressure of the helium being loaded inside the helium tank, it should be possible to avoid an accident like this in the future. or it may require helium be loaded only once the tanks are already in a bath of LOX so that any heat generated by pressurining Helium in the tank is absorved by LOX so the tank never gets hot. (at the cost of warming the LOX and preventing supercold LOX experiments). Just 'wow'. If there's a wrong way to interpret something, that's where you go. Just what 'heat generated by pressurizing Helium[sic]' do you refer to? The fact that they have been able to reproduce the failure is a very good sign though because they can then easily test for what the limits really are, and then do the same tests to evaluate if an updated resin or carbon layout design improves the situtaion and allows SpaceX to raise the operating temperature/pressure ranges. You can always make **** blow up. The question is whether or not the ways they've found to make **** blow up are what actually happened to cause **** to blow up. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SpaceX in 2016 | Greg \(Strider\) Moore | Policy | 2 | February 17th 16 11:45 PM |
SpaceX failure cause latest | Jeff Findley[_6_] | Policy | 2 | July 23rd 15 04:32 PM |
Test Failure of SpaceX Merlin VTS1-221Engine | [email protected] | Policy | 57 | September 18th 05 11:14 PM |