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

SpaceX Dragon 2 capsule destroyed in abort motor ground test



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old May 3rd 19, 06:12 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default SpaceX Dragon 2 capsule destroyed in abort motor ground test

JF Mezei wrote on Thu, 2 May 2019
16:05:14 -0400:

On 2019-05-02 06:59, Jeff Findley wrote:

Note from above the OMS propellant pressure was regulated to:

The primary regulator outlet pressure at normal flow is 252 to 262
psig and 247 psig minimum at high abort flow, with lockup at 266
psig maximum. The secondary regulator outlet pressure at normal
flow is 259 to 269 psig and 254 psig minimum at high abort flow,
with lockup at 273 psig maximum.

RCS system he


The primary regulates the pressure at 242 to 248 psig, the
secondary at 253 to 259 psig.


Thanks. Expected much different pressure differences. For a capsule as
small as Dragon2, couldn't they have a single tank/helium concept with
different regulators to feed Draco vs Super Dracos ?


Which part of 'pressure fed rocket engine' do you not understand?


In the case of Dragon2, do the Draco systems use the same hardware as
for Dragon 1? (which would simplidfy engineering SuperDracos as totally
separate system).


No, they built it all totally different just for the **** of it.


Since mass is so critical to flights/payload, I would have expected the
maximum possible mass savings with as much shared hardware as possible.


If mass is that critically important you don't build pressure fed
rockets.


But I guess sometimes extra mass is worth it if you can reuse a system
that has been already desingned and focus only on the new engines.


You're (foolishly) leaping to supporting your own position. The way
you want to do it takes MORE hardware and MORE complexity than the way
they did it. If mass is important you don't add a bunch of extra ****
so as to get multiple uses out of a piece of hardware.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #42  
Old May 3rd 19, 11:25 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default SpaceX Dragon 2 capsule destroyed in abort motor ground test

In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 6:57:25 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:

While I agree it's likely this Dragon 2 is a total loss, we really don't
know the extent of the damage from a low frame rate cell phone video.
For all we know, at the end of the video, Dragon 2 could be sitting
mostly intact just out of the frame.


I saw an update on this question in AP News today. "SpaceX confirms its crew capsule was destroyed in ground testing two weeks ago."

https://apnews.com/2d41dee71a3f49feadc5987f59d603bd

Goes on to say: "SpaceX still cannot access the test stand at Cape Canaveral, Florida, because of toxic fuel contamination."

Which is yikes.


Existing hypergolic propellants are pretty toxic. I'll have to check to
see if the cargo Dragon launch happened last night (weather prediction
was dicey). The plan was to land that booster on the autonomous drone
ship not far off the coast due to the contamination in the landing zone
area. So this is also interfering with their normal launch operations.

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.
  #43  
Old May 3rd 19, 11:35 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default SpaceX Dragon 2 capsule destroyed in abort motor ground test

In article ,
says...

On 2019-05-02 15:42, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Yeah, I saw something on that, as well. What I saw said they were 500
msec away from SuperDraco ignition.


So my theory based on seeing no exhaust out of the engines prior to
explosion on that small phone video wasn't so stupid after all.


Pretty much is still stupid because the crappy cell phone video fueled
idle speculation of non-experts. It was also reported that both NASA
and SpaceX have been reviewing the actual high speed video of the
anomaly which is 1000x better than that cell phone video.

If they know what happens 500ms prior to ignition, they should be able
to get a better idea of what went wrong.


I'm sure they know the exact sequence and they have the test data to go
along with that.

Now it's a matter of putting that together with the high speed video and
go through an actual fault tree analysis of what could have happened and
see how that correlates with the data. You don't just "wing it" when it
comes to an accident investigation.

Are fuel tanks always compressed, or does a valve open to "prime" the
fuel tanks only once engines may be ignited ? (for instance, only
compressing the tanks when crews enter Dragon 2 (before which , the
"eject" function wouldn't be needed/used) ?


I would guess that they're not always pressurized. My guess is that
they're "safed" when they aren't needed, which would mean the propellant
tanks aren't under pressure. But then again, I really don't know. They
may be pressurized at all times.

Both SpaceX and NASA know the answer to that question. That's the
important thing.

Goes on to say: "SpaceX still cannot access the test stand at Cape

Canaveral, Florida, because of toxic fuel contamination."

Aren't there suits and SCUBA units they can wear to retreive some
important debris (such as recorders) and epecially photograph the debris
and their location ?


I doubt NASA is going to put anyone at risk, so the cleanup and
collection of debris and data will be slow and methodical. They're
going to want to document every bit of debris including exactly where it
was found. It's hard to do that when you're in a hazmat suit.

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.
  #44  
Old May 3rd 19, 11:43 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default SpaceX Dragon 2 capsule destroyed in abort motor ground test

In article ,
says...

On 2019-05-02 06:59, Jeff Findley wrote:

Note from above the OMS propellant pressure was regulated to:

The primary regulator outlet pressure at normal flow is 252 to 262
psig and 247 psig minimum at high abort flow, with lockup at 266
psig maximum. The secondary regulator outlet pressure at normal
flow is 259 to 269 psig and 254 psig minimum at high abort flow,
with lockup at 273 psig maximum.

RCS system he


The primary regulates the pressure at 242 to 248 psig, the
secondary at 253 to 259 psig.


Thanks. Expected much different pressure differences. For a capsule as
small as Dragon2, couldn't they have a single tank/helium concept with
different regulators to feed Draco vs Super Dracos ?


Doubtful. Things that are different just aren't the same. I don't have
data for how much pressure is in each of the tanks, but since Super
Draco engines are used for abort, the thrust and the flow rates have to
be *much* higher than the shuttle's OMS engines, so I'd expect the
pressures to be much higher too. So no, you really can't "share"
propellant tanks with Dragon 2.

Besides, you've already been told by Fred that "sharing" makes plumbing,
valves, and regulators *more* complex, not less. Added complexity means
more chances of things to go wrong, which is *bad* for safety.

K.I.S.S. - Keep it simple, stupid!

In the case of Dragon2, do the Draco systems use the same hardware as
for Dragon 1?


Don't know for sure, but I'm sure there are similarities.

(which would simplidfy engineering SuperDracos as totally
separate system).

Since mass is so critical to flights/payload, I would have expected
the maximum possible mass savings with as much shared hardware as
possible.


K.I.S.S. Just keep the Draco system separate from the Super Draco
system.

But I guess sometimes extra mass is worth it if you can reuse a system
that has been already desingned and focus only on the new engines.


Again, it's not just that it's the fact that the systems have different
pressures, purposes, armed times, and etc. Things that are different
just aren't the same. So, keep them separate!

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.
  #45  
Old May 3rd 19, 03:55 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Rocket Man[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default SpaceX Dragon 2 capsule destroyed in abort motor ground test


"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 6:57:25 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:

While I agree it's likely this Dragon 2 is a total loss, we really
don't
know the extent of the damage from a low frame rate cell phone video.
For all we know, at the end of the video, Dragon 2 could be sitting
mostly intact just out of the frame.


I saw an update on this question in AP News today. "SpaceX confirms its
crew capsule was destroyed in ground testing two weeks ago."

https://apnews.com/2d41dee71a3f49feadc5987f59d603bd

Goes on to say: "SpaceX still cannot access the test stand at Cape
Canaveral, Florida, because of toxic fuel contamination."

Which is yikes.


Existing hypergolic propellants are pretty toxic. I'll have to check to
see if the cargo Dragon launch happened last night (weather prediction
was dicey). The plan was to land that booster on the autonomous drone
ship not far off the coast due to the contamination in the landing zone
area. So this is also interfering with their normal launch operations.


Most likely the hypergolic fuels came into contact with each other due to a
leak or faulty valve. The SuperDraco thrusters aren't suspect.


  #46  
Old May 3rd 19, 11:55 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default SpaceX Dragon 2 capsule destroyed in abort motor ground test

JF Mezei wrote on Fri, 3 May 2019
11:40:51 -0400:

On 2019-05-03 01:07, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Well, yeah, it was. You realize that "500 msec" means you're right in
the midst of it, don't you?


If it is 500msec BEFORE ignition, you're not in the midst of it.


You really don't have a clue as to just how pressure fed hypergolic
engines work, do you, much less just how short a time 500 msec is.


Later, you mentioned thet they only pressurize the tanks just before
first firing. So perhaps the explosion happened as they pressurized
tanks, before valves started to let the fuel flow to combustion chamber.


Pretty sure I listed that as one of the possible causes. Perhaps a
pressure line was full of Magic Monkey **** (tm) from the monkeys that
flew out your butt.


So it isn't a given that this happened at time a command was sent to
send fuel to combustion chamber.


Pretty sure I haven't seen anyone, including myself, say that it was.


SpaceX would know exactly what was happening 500ms before the incident.


You might want to comprehend a few little details like what the
actuation times for valves and fuel flow times are.

Do you have any clue just how short 500 msec is when you're talking
about ignition of a hypergolic engine?


"ignition" ? is there an actual ignition in hypergolics? Wouldn't
starting the engine involve opening valves and then letting the 2
components travel to combustion chamber and ignite whenever they meet?


Yes, which is precisely why "approximately 500 msec" doesn't tell you
much, if anything.


I don't know how long it takes for components to travel from the tank to
the combustion chamber. SpaceX does.


Then you should shut up and stop carping when people try to answer
your questions.

is 'yes'. I say that because BOTH cases are true. Generally the fuel
tanks won't be initially pressurized until just before the first time
you fire the rocket engine.


Since Super Dracos's primary role is the emergency escape system, does
pressurizing "on demand" make a difference in terms of how quickly the
engines fire and pull the capsule off the rocket?


Think about what you just asked and how pressurization works.


I would have really expected them to "arm" the system prior to crew
ingress. But if the delay between unpressurized fuel and the engines
providing thrust is small then I guess the two can be combined.


Why would you expect that? Remember that once you pressurize the fuel
tanks there is no good way to depressurize them.

However, since there is no way to
depressurize the fuel tank once it's pressurized,


In a context where you are switching from optimum pressure from Super
Draco to Draco, you can start with the higher pressure and once you fire
the Dracos, pressure drop to a poit where the Draco regulator starts to
feed more helium to maintain optimum pressure.


Think about what you just said. First, it makes no sense. Second,
you're still stuck in your imaginary system where SuperDraco and Draco
are sharing fuel and pressurization systems. Third, think about the
difference in fuel flow and just how little depressurization you're
going to get puffing Draco thrusters out of a fuel tank that is
overpressurized for that and contains a ton and a half of fuel at that
pressure.

All that said, the probabilities of what went wrong remain the same:
COPV failure, pressurization valve or sensor system failure,


why would there be COPV failure in hypergolics? No cryo issues or fuel
freezing. And if failure happened 500ms before engine start, it is safe
bet the helium tank(s) had been filled well before.


Why would there be any fail of anything anywhere? Gee, obviously
there was no problem at all!


If the regulator ended up releasing liquid helium into the fuel tanks
raising their pressure to well above design limits (before valve to turn
on engine is opened), that could cause tank failure and if both tanks
failed, you could go "kaboom" real fast.


Pretty sure that was on my list. Alternatively, there could have been
a minute flaw in one of the COPVs that caused an eventual failure and
you've got the same sort of massive sudden overpressure of a
propellant tank. I know reading is hard for you, but you should have
noted that among other things I didn't give any particular probability
of which possible failure happened. There's a reason for that.


It all depends on the sequence of events, which SpaceX already knows.


Well, no it doesn't, quite. Consider, a COPV failure, a propellant
tank failure, a valve failure, and a sensor failure all look the same
since they all result in a massive spike in propellant tank pressure.

Why would you put people at risk for any of that? You've got to clean
it up anyway, so do that.


And how do thyey clean thing up ? don't they send people in suits with
scuba to do the cleanup? If they have robots do it, then those robots
can also survey the site and take pictures.


Why, they clean it up by cleaning it up. They DON'T clean it up by
doing other things instead of cleaning it up.


I suspect SpaceX has lots of imagery of post explosion already. The
"dangerous site" excuse is just an excuse to pretend they don't have
imagery.


Yes, yes, you were frightened by Elon Musk when you were just a baby.
We get it.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #47  
Old May 4th 19, 03:23 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default SpaceX Dragon 2 capsule destroyed in abort motor ground test

In article ,
says...

On 2019-05-03 01:07, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Do you have any clue just how short 500 msec is when you're talking
about ignition of a hypergolic engine?


"ignition" ? is there an actual ignition in hypergolics? Wouldn't
starting the engine involve opening valves and then letting the 2
components travel to combustion chamber and ignite whenever they meet?


When the hypergolic fuel and oxidizer come into contact with each other,
they spontaneously ignite. So that's still ignition.

All that said, the probabilities of what went wrong remain the same:
COPV failure, pressurization valve or sensor system failure,


why would there be COPV failure in hypergolics?


Because the helium tanks, fuel tanks, and oxidizer tanks that supply the
Super Draco engines with propellant are all COPVs. Obviously they're
not the same design as the helium tanks in the Falcon, but they're all
composite overwrapped pressure vessels. That's the lightest way you can
make tanks like this. Note that we've been making tanks like this for
literally decades.

The thing that made the helium COPVs in Falcon unique is that they are
submerged in liquid oxygen. Obviously we don't have that with Dragon or
Dragon 2, but they all have COPVs.

No cryo issues or fuel
freezing. And if failure happened 500ms before engine start, it is safe
bet the helium tank(s) had been filled well before.


Obviously, which is why the tanks themselves are not likely suspects for
the root cause in this case, IMHO. But they are obviously involved in
the investigation because you don't rule anything out, at least
initially, in an investigation like this. You examine every single
possible cause.

If the regulator ended up releasing liquid helium into the fuel tanks
raising their pressure to well above design limits (before valve to turn
on engine is opened), that could cause tank failure and if both tanks
failed, you could go "kaboom" real fast.


I doubt that this system has liquid helium in it at all. It's far more
likely the helium tanks were at ambient temperatures (or close to them)
at the beginning of the test. Remember the helium tanks are meant to
pressurize the propellant tanks to pressures higher than the chamber
pressure of the Super Dracos. If they contained liquid helium, that
would defeat their purpose entirely.

It all depends on the sequence of events, which SpaceX already knows.


Which is why all this idle speculation is actually annoying to me.

Why would you put people at risk for any of that? You've got to clean
it up anyway, so do that.


And how do thyey clean thing up ? don't they send people in suits with
scuba to do the cleanup? If they have robots do it, then those robots
can also survey the site and take pictures.

I suspect SpaceX has lots of imagery of post explosion already. The
"dangerous site" excuse is just an excuse to pretend they don't have
imagery.


NASA and SpaceX are no doubt combing over any imagery they have. You
really have no right to see that imagery, IMHO. I'm not sure what
compelling interest the public would have in such imagery. All it would
do is fuel more idle speculation, which is not at all helpful.

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.
  #48  
Old May 4th 19, 10:05 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default SpaceX Dragon 2 capsule destroyed in abort motor ground test

In article ,
says...

On 2019-05-04 10:23, Jeff Findley wrote:
Because the helium tanks, fuel tanks, and oxidizer tanks that supply the
Super Draco engines with propellant are all COPVs.


I would think that COPV aspect would be irrelevant since we're not
talking about a tank immersed into cryo tank.


Depends if that's what failed.

Obviously, which is why the tanks themselves are not likely suspects for
the root cause in this case, IMHO.


I doubt that this system has liquid helium in it at all.
If they contained liquid helium, that would defeat their purpose

entirely.

Does Helium become liquid when compressed? Mr Google only tells me it
becomes liquid when cooled. I was under the impression that they would
load liquid helium in those tanks and it would remain liquid due to high
pressure.


The helium tanks will contain high pressure helium gas.

I know you mentioned the engines need ballpark 250-275 psi to push fuel
into combustion chamber. At what pressure would helium be stored at in
its own tank ?


Those were numbers for the space shuttle, not Super Draco. I have no
idea what the chamber pressure is for Super Draco. Maybe you should try
Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperDraco\

The above says the chamber pressure is on the order of 1,000 psi. The
propellant tanks will have a higher pressure in order to obtain the flow
rate needed.

Which is why all this idle speculation is actually annoying to me.


Blame lack of transparency when observers were used to a lot of
transparency in the past.

But this speculation does allow people to learn how things work, so for
instance, you provided the pressure ranges needed , and hopefully a
definition of "ignition" in the context of hypergolics.


Ugh.

NASA and SpaceX are no doubt combing over any imagery they have. You
really have no right to see that imagery, IMHO. I'm not sure what
compelling interest the public would have in such imagery. All it would
do is fuel more idle speculation, which is not at all helpful.


Sicne NASA is government operation, don't USA citizens have a right to
that information through FOIA?


Not if the information is considered a trade secret or regulated under
ITAR.

ITAR
https://gov-relations.com/itar/

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.
  #49  
Old May 5th 19, 06:54 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default SpaceX Dragon 2 capsule destroyed in abort motor ground test

JF Mezei wrote on Sat, 4 May 2019
15:09:49 -0400:

On 2019-05-04 10:23, Jeff Findley wrote:

When the hypergolic fuel and oxidizer come into contact with each other,
they spontaneously ignite. So that's still ignition.


In LOX/hydrogen environment, ignition is a command that causes a spark
in the right place and assumes instant ignition.


Not exactly, no. I believe that the igniters start firing when the
count hits zero and 'ignition' is a status call indicating that the
thing actually lit. For example, on a Shuttle launch Main Engine
Start was commanded at T-6.6 seconds and solid rocket booster ignition
happened at T-0.


In hypergolic, it isn't clear to me whether ignition refers to the
opening of valves that let the combonents flow to combustion chamber, or
the time when the components meet and start to combust.


It's probably going to vary by rocket.


The former is a specific time where a command is sent. The later is a
fungible time that depends on how long it takes for components to travel
from tank/valve to the combustion chamber and then for chemical reaction
to start to happen.


Neither is a specific time. It's a status call.


Since I don't know what "ignition" means in terms of hypergolics, the
500ms time prior to ignition can mean anything.


Since you don't know what "ignition" means in terms of any rocket, I
guess that problem is solved.


Say ignition is defined as time combustion starts, and that it takes 1
second for fuel to travel from valve to combustion chamber, then 500ms
would be half a second after the valve was opened between tanks and
combustion chamber.

But if it takes 200ms for fuel to travel from valve to combustion
chamber, then 500ms means the explosion happened before valve opened.

And if ignition is defined as the time the valves are opened, then 500ms
would refer to a stable state prior to ignition, unless opening valve
between heliium tank and hypergolics to pressurize them happens 500ms
before valves between hypergolics and combustion chamber are opened.


The real question is what the guy who made the statement means by
'ignition'. 'Ignition' is a status call that indicates the thing is
actually lit. Obviously that's going to be a slightly variable
quantity.

Because the helium tanks, fuel tanks, and oxidizer tanks that supply the
Super Draco engines with propellant are all COPVs.


I would think that COPV aspect would be irrelevant since we're not
talking about a tank immersed into cryo tank.


So pressure vessels never fail unless they're immersed in a cryo tank?
What a silly notion!

Obviously, which is why the tanks themselves are not likely suspects for
the root cause in this case, IMHO.


I doubt that this system has liquid helium in it at all.
If they contained liquid helium, that would defeat their purpose
entirely.


Does Helium become liquid when compressed? Mr Google only tells me it
becomes liquid when cooled. I was under the impression that they would
load liquid helium in those tanks and it would remain liquid due to high
pressure.


Presumably if you could apply enough pressure you could get it liquid
at more 'reasonable' temperatures, but that's a preposterous amount of
pressure so it's not really a useful bit of information.


I know you mentioned the engines need ballpark 250-275 psi to push fuel
into combustion chamber. At what pressure would helium be stored at in
its own tank ?


Why do you think that matters?


Say helium is pressurized to 500psi in its own re-enforced tank, and the
hypergolic tanks are built to widthstand 300psi.


You have a preposterously low threshold for 'safety margin'. You also
have a ridiculously low idea for helium pressure. For example, helium
COPVs on the Shuttle had burst strengths north of 8,000 psi.


If, when they open
valve between helium and hypergolics, the regulators fail and pressurize
the hypergolics above 300, I could see hypergolic tanks failing.


It was on my list. I'm so happy you can "see it".

Which is why all this idle speculation is actually annoying to me.


Blame lack of transparency when observers were used to a lot of
transparency in the past.


Utter bull****. There is no 'lack of transparency'. To be
'transparent' THEY HAVE TO HAVE SOME IDEA WHAT HAPPENED AND THEY'RE
STILL ANALYZING THAT DATA.


But this speculation does allow people to learn how things work, so for
instance, you provided the pressure ranges needed , and hopefully a
definition of "ignition" in the context of hypergolics.


No, this 'speculation' is annoyance. There are ways to "learn how
things work" without being an obnoxious ****.

NASA and SpaceX are no doubt combing over any imagery they have. You
really have no right to see that imagery, IMHO. I'm not sure what
compelling interest the public would have in such imagery. All it would
do is fuel more idle speculation, which is not at all helpful.


Sicne NASA is government operation, don't USA citizens have a right to
that information through FOIA?


So go file for that. If they conclude it's not covered by SpaceX
trade secrets you'll get it in perhaps six months or so.


And I disagree on the speculation aspect.


Of course you do, but then you're not quite bright.


NOT providing it fuels
specualtion because it also fuels people wondering why they have to hide
and why. Releasing the data would have harmless discussion on potential
causes which eventually get confirmed.


Thank you for the loony conspiracy theory perspective on things. Since
you're going to be loony regardless, why feed you?


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #50  
Old May 5th 19, 07:10 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default SpaceX Dragon 2 capsule destroyed in abort motor ground test

JF Mezei wrote on Sat, 4 May 2019
17:50:29 -0400:

On 2019-05-04 17:05, Jeff Findley wrote:

Those were numbers for the space shuttle, not Super Draco.


OK, had been lead to believe that Super Dracos were same ballpark as the
OMS engines on Shuttle.


Who led you to believe that? This stuff is dirt simple to find out,
SO WHY DON'T YOU ONCE IN A WHILE?


1000psi is much much higher.


Gee, did you take off your shoes for that one?


Assuming (for simplification) the fuel has to be at 1000psi, roughly
speaking at what PSI would helium tank need to be such that at end of
engine firing, there would still be 1000psi in the fuel tanks?


That depends on things we don't know. It will be stored at the
highest pressure reasonable in order to minimize the size of the
required helium tanks (and don't assume there's just one; there are
two propellant tanks per pair of engines and four pairs of engines).


are we talking 1500psi, 2000 psi ? 5000psi ? (I have no ideas of size of
tanks involved and how much helium needs to be displaced as fuel tanks
empty to combustion chamber).


Neither do we. We know how much propellant each pair of engines has,
from which we can calculate the volume of the propellant tanks. From
those tank volumes you can calculate how much helium it takes to bring
those tanks to 1,000 psi when empty. Then you hit the unknowns, since
how much pressure a helium cOPV needs to carry depends on the volume
of the COPV. But by all means, you break out your crayon and do those
calculations.


Just curious if in case of regulator failure, the fuel tanks may be
overhwelved with intense pressure from helium or whether the maximum
possible helium pressure would be well within reasonable pressure
capability of fuel tank.


Which part of my telling you this was one possible failure mode was it
that escaped you?


Would they design the hypergolic tanks to widthstand worse case scenario
in terms of helium pressure being fed into it ?


Of course not. The tanks would have to be stupidly heavy if you did
that.


Would the thrust level for Super Dracos be determined by the regulator
between helium tank and hypergolic tanks, or are there variable
regulators between hypergolic tanks and the combustion chamber ?


They're called 'throttle valves' at that point, not 'regulators'. The
pressure the fuel is delivered at is relatively constant, no matter
how fast you deliver it to the combustion chamber.


--
"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 gets paid for Pad Abort test Greg \(Strider\) Moore Policy 2 June 12th 15 12:46 AM
SpaceX Dragon Capsule Splashes Down in Pacific, Ending Historic Test Flight [email protected] Policy 11 June 4th 12 02:22 PM
Dragon capsule parachute test Pat Flannery Policy 60 September 24th 10 03:51 AM
Dragon capsule parachute test Craig Bingman History 0 September 24th 10 03:51 AM
Dragon capsule parachute test Dr J R Stockton[_79_] History 0 August 27th 10 11:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:59 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.