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

Accident at Cape



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 4th 16, 02:15 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Vaughn Simon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Accident at Cape

On 9/1/2016 11:06 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
does SpaceX have alternate pad
they can launch from ?


http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/3/127...vandenberg-39a

This article covers the readiness and use of alternate launch pads.
Implies that pad 39 could be ready in a couple of months. Says what
sort of launches can happen from California and why.

Strangely, no mention of their Texas site.

Naturally, they must first determine the cause of the explosion and
formulate a fix before they launch anything. By then, it appears that
39 could be ready.
  #2  
Old September 5th 16, 12:57 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Accident at Cape

In article , says...

On 9/1/2016 11:06 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
does SpaceX have alternate pad
they can launch from ?


http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/3/127...vandenberg-39a

This article covers the readiness and use of alternate launch pads.
Implies that pad 39 could be ready in a couple of months. Says what
sort of launches can happen from California and why.

Strangely, no mention of their Texas site.


Because all they've done so far at the Boca Chica site in Texas is
attempt to prepare the ground. SpaceX has since said that "two years of
dirt work" will be needed before construction of the launch facility can
commence.

Naturally, they must first determine the cause of the explosion and
formulate a fix before they launch anything. By then, it appears that
39 could be ready.


Pad 39A was being readied for the first Falcon Heavy flight, which could
naturally be delayed (yet again) due to higher priorities. Returning
Falcon 9 to the sort of flights which were flown from SLC-40 would
certainly qualify as higher priority.

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.
  #3  
Old September 5th 16, 02:22 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Vaughn Simon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Accident at Cape

On 9/4/2016 7:57 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
Because all they've done so far at the Boca Chica site in Texas is
attempt to prepare the ground. SpaceX has since said that "two years of
dirt work" will be needed before construction of the launch facility can
commence.

Yep, I found this article that says that:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/pre...8f83ab605.html
But I find that confusing because they obviously have enough facility in
place to fire that returned booster repeatedly.


  #4  
Old September 5th 16, 10:04 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Anthony Frost
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 253
Default Accident at Cape

In message
Vaughn Simon wrote:

On 9/4/2016 7:57 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
Because all they've done so far at the Boca Chica site in Texas is
attempt to prepare the ground. SpaceX has since said that "two years of
dirt work" will be needed before construction of the launch facility can
commence.

Yep, I found this article that says that:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/pre...8f83ab605.html
But I find that confusing because they obviously have enough facility in
place to fire that returned booster repeatedly.


Texas is apparently quite a big place. SpaceX have two facilities there
and the place where the test firings take place is not the one at Boca
Chica.

Anthony

  #5  
Old September 5th 16, 12:34 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Vaughn Simon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Accident at Cape

On 9/4/2016 10:25 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
When they test fire engines, are they horizontal or vertical ?


They fire not just engines, but entire boosters, and it's vertical.

Vaughn
  #6  
Old September 5th 16, 02:06 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Accident at Cape

In article , says...

On 9/4/2016 7:57 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
Because all they've done so far at the Boca Chica site in Texas is
attempt to prepare the ground. SpaceX has since said that "two years of
dirt work" will be needed before construction of the launch facility can
commence.

Yep, I found this article that says that:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/pre...8f83ab605.html
But I find that confusing because they obviously have enough facility in
place to fire that returned booster repeatedly.


Completely different location. They do engine and stage test firings at
their McGregor, Texas facility. That facility has been in place since
very early on in SpaceX history. It's also where the Grasshopper
flights took place.

Because of the issues with the soil, the Boca Chica Texas site is not
much more than acquired land at this point.

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 September 5th 16, 02:13 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Accident at Cape

In article om,
says...

On 2016-09-04 09:15, Vaughn Simon wrote:

Naturally, they must first determine the cause of the explosion and
formulate a fix before they launch anything. By then, it appears that
39 could be ready.


SpaceX has generally been quick to determine failure causes. It is in
their own self interest to find and fix the cause quickly to resume
commercial operations.

And if you look at their landing failures, each attempt fixed problems
experienced by previous one and improved landing till they got it and I
assume with every failure, they learn and improve the software.

For Columbia and Challenger, weren't the causes also found quickly (but
solutions going to "commitee" and taking forever to decide/implement).


The problem with both Challenger and Columbia is that after each
accident, investigations uncovered *many* other problems which needed to
be solved. This is especially true with Challenger. Several other
"criticality 1" problems were addressed or mitigated during the
downtime. Things like nose wheel steering were added. Prior to that,
differential braking was used to help steer during landing. But failing
brakes and tires were also a huge problem. To augment the marginal
brakes, the drag chute was added. Note how the braking issues and
steering were co-mingled. This was a huge rats nest of problems.

There were other issues like this that would have caused loss of orbiter
and crew if the system failed. That was the meaning of "criticality 1".

Question: say some keronese was leaking. O2 fill completed and started
to vent. Would pure O2 gas entering in contact with Kerosene ignite
without a spark ?


There would have to be some sort of ignition source. But do note that
many things become "contact explosives" when soaked in LOX.

I remember seeing video of LOX poured onto cold BBQ charcoal, and that
ingnited without spark. But wondering about gaseous O2 (I assume any/all
venting is gaseous , right ?)


I'd think you'd have to have an ignition source, otherwise the
briquettes would become soaked in LOX and would be explosive!

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.
  #8  
Old September 5th 16, 02:16 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default Accident at Cape

In article om,
says...

On 2016-09-04 21:22, Vaughn Simon wrote:

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/pre...8f83ab605.html
But I find that confusing because they obviously have enough facility in
place to fire that returned booster repeatedly.



When they test fire engines, are they horizontal or vertical ?


Vertical. At McGregor Texas. The yet to be built launch site is in
Boca Chica Texas. The two locations are approximately 460 miles apart!

The one tidbit I had read is that 39A has already had the vertical
erector/railcar tested. So it appears they already have the hangar and
the transporter/erector in place.


Pad 39A is reportedly a couple months away from being "operational".

Anyone know the status of the rotating service structure used by
Shuttle? Has it been removed ? work begun ? or still all there ?


Not sure. I believe it will be removed. I would think the "visitor's
center" will want it as an exhibit.

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.
  #9  
Old September 5th 16, 03:20 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rob[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default Accident at Cape

JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-09-04 09:15, Vaughn Simon wrote:

Naturally, they must first determine the cause of the explosion and
formulate a fix before they launch anything. By then, it appears that
39 could be ready.


SpaceX has generally been quick to determine failure causes. It is in
their own self interest to find and fix the cause quickly to resume
commercial operations.

And if you look at their landing failures, each attempt fixed problems
experienced by previous one and improved landing till they got it and I
assume with every failure, they learn and improve the software.


With the landing failures it was not so critical. They attempted the
landing, and if it failed the customer's mission objective was still
achieved and they could further tweak the landing system.

A failure as occurred last week is different. The customer's payload
has been destroyed and they are not happy. They cannot quickly build
another (it may even be the end of the entire satellite building industry
in Israel), and they and other customers will not be happy to launch
with SpaceX until this issue has been throughly investigated and resolved.
 




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
Accident at Cape David Spain Policy 22 September 5th 16 10:24 AM
Accident at Cape Dr J R Stockton[_196_] Policy 2 September 4th 16 04:35 AM
A Day at the Cape Ed Kyle Policy 3 July 12th 05 03:38 PM
Fun At The Cape Andre Lieven History 11 February 11th 04 12:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:05 AM.


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.