Leaning tower of falcon 9

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:

snip

I claim that something is DESIGNED for a specific minimum performance.

Of course it is and based on the knowledge one has at the time.

If that was not true, you would have to tear every airplane down after
every flight, which we obviously do not do.

Nope.


Yep. You just agreed, above, Chimp.

Will you be the poster boy for tunnel vision again this year?


Lack of response noted.

I responded but you didn't understand the response.


You test fly the design looking for design discrepancies and errors.

After the design is verified, it goes into production and the required
periodic inspections may or may not find subtle design flaws such as
a gusset that is under strength and needs to be beefed up.


And those 'required periodic inspections' are based on what, Chimp?

History, McCrap.


Wrong, Chimp****.

Correct, McCrap.

And there are several kinds of periodic inspections; the minimums
required by the FAA for everybody, additional inspections required by
an AD by the FAA because something was found not to last as long as
expected, and inspections required by the manufacturer during early
fielding of the product.


Mezei claims that you cannot know that you will meet that minimum
performance unless you tear every airplane apart after every flight
and fly them to destruction.

I don't care what Mezei claims.


Then why the **** are you even in this discussion?

Why the **** do you care?


Rhetorical question. Look it up.

YOU claim that you get "short maintenance and inspection time
requirements" (that 'minimum performance' I'm talking about) and that
then you do "maintenance and inspection" and that those times MIGHT
lengthen with experience.

Nope; the comment was specifically about engines and things like engine
part replacement times and engine overhaul times. This is called "service
life", not performance.


And "service life" is part of the engineering "design performance",
Chimp****.

Nope, two separate, but often, related things, McCrap.


Yep, the whole works is 'design performance'. Speaking of 'tunnel
vision', there's your narrow definition of 'performance'.

Nope, e.g. how much power an engine puts out is performance, how long
it continues to output that power is service life, McCrap.



--
Jim Pennino

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-06-22 19:31, wrote:

Most of this is apples and oranges as Spacex is not producing certified
aircraft.


McCall had argued SpaceX can't change its design because it is in
production.


That is just stupid; they are unlikely to ever go into production.


Yes, it is just stupid. Which is why I never said it.

I certainly didn't say you did, McCrap.


I certainly didn't say you said I did, Chimp****.

Then why talk to me about it other than to be argumentative, McCrap?


For the anal, production is when you can call up the company and
have their product delivered, which is not the SpaceX business
model.


I pointed out to Mr Mezei some time ago that rockets are hand built
and aren't like cars at all. I don't think the boy reads very well.

Morgan cars are hand built and in production, McCrap.


How nice for them. What payload do they have to LEO?

Irrelevant; what matters being hand built has nothing to do with
production.

Being in production has nothing to do with how something is built or
what that something is, McCrap.


Where did I say it did, Chimp****?

It was implied above in "rockets are hand built" Mc Crap.

snip ranting bile

Being in production also has nothing to do with whether you can buy
your own personal copy or not. For example, Falcon 9 and Dragon are
both 'in production'. You just get it as a package that includes
launching it for you.

The word production in American English implies continuous manufacture
for sale. SpaceX manufactures as needed for their own use. SpaceX is
selling launch services, not space ships, Space Cadet McCrap.


--
Jim Pennino

In article ,
says...
You simply can't do that with a winged return vehicle unless you also
keep a fuel reserve on board.

Say the Falcon9 were in the shape of the Concorde with wings having mass
of just 1kg. (aka: mythical no weight penalty).

I'm not going to engage in this sort of senseless speculation. Wings
are heavy and also impose a significant drag penalty during launch.
They are inferior to vertical landing for unmanned stage recovery as
long as you're willing to accept that you'll lose a stage from time to
time.


And since wings are going to be 'dead stick' single pass if you don't
also reserve fuel, you're going to lose a stage from time to time that
way, too.


That and if you do keep a fuel reserve in a winged vehicle and expect to
use it in final approach (i.e. while gliding subsonic) the rocket
engines you used during launch are going to be both horribly overpowered
thrust wise and horribly inefficient fuel consumption wise. So making
good use of that fuel which is reserved for landing is going to be a
challenge. Many past proposals for fly back boosters include turbojet
engines for final approach and landing. Seems rather daft to keep on
adding mass and complexity to a design solve the problems that wings
cause, especially since cost scales with complexity.

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.

wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:

snip

I claim that something is DESIGNED for a specific minimum performance.

Of course it is and based on the knowledge one has at the time.

If that was not true, you would have to tear every airplane down after
every flight, which we obviously do not do.

Nope.


Yep. You just agreed, above, Chimp.

Will you be the poster boy for tunnel vision again this year?


Lack of response noted.

I responded but you didn't understand the response.


Lack of response noted.


You test fly the design looking for design discrepancies and errors.

After the design is verified, it goes into production and the required
periodic inspections may or may not find subtle design flaws such as
a gusset that is under strength and needs to be beefed up.


And those 'required periodic inspections' are based on what, Chimp?

History, McCrap.


Wrong, Chimp****.


Correct, McCrap.


Well of course I'm correct, Chimp****.


And there are several kinds of periodic inspections; the minimums
required by the FAA for everybody, additional inspections required by
an AD by the FAA because something was found not to last as long as
expected, and inspections required by the manufacturer during early
fielding of the product.


And it's that last set that's based on minimum design performance. You
know, like the ten uses of a Falcon 9 that SpaceX calls out that Mezei
is arguing about.


Mezei claims that you cannot know that you will meet that minimum
performance unless you tear every airplane apart after every flight
and fly them to destruction.

I don't care what Mezei claims.


Then why the **** are you even in this discussion?

Why the **** do you care?


Rhetorical question. Look it up.

YOU claim that you get "short maintenance and inspection time
requirements" (that 'minimum performance' I'm talking about) and that
then you do "maintenance and inspection" and that those times MIGHT
lengthen with experience.

Nope; the comment was specifically about engines and things like engine
part replacement times and engine overhaul times. This is called "service
life", not performance.


And "service life" is part of the engineering "design performance",
Chimp****.

Nope, two separate, but often, related things, McCrap.


Yep, the whole works is 'design performance'. Speaking of 'tunnel
vision', there's your narrow definition of 'performance'.

Nope, e.g. how much power an engine puts out is performance, how long
it continues to output that power is service life, McCrap.


Yep, e.g. both are 'design performance', Chimp****. Just because you
can call something 'thrust' doesn't make it 'not performance'. Same
with 'service life'. Just because something falls in a category
doesn't make it not 'design performance', which is the whole
enchilada.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-06-22 19:31, wrote:

Most of this is apples and oranges as Spacex is not producing certified
aircraft.


McCall had argued SpaceX can't change its design because it is in
production.


That is just stupid; they are unlikely to ever go into production.


Yes, it is just stupid. Which is why I never said it.

I certainly didn't say you did, McCrap.


I certainly didn't say you said I did, Chimp****.

Then why talk to me about it other than to be argumentative, McCrap?


Then why talk to me about it other than to be argumentative,
Chimp****?


For the anal, production is when you can call up the company and
have their product delivered, which is not the SpaceX business
model.


I pointed out to Mr Mezei some time ago that rockets are hand built
and aren't like cars at all. I don't think the boy reads very well.

Morgan cars are hand built and in production, McCrap.


How nice for them. What payload do they have to LEO?

Irrelevant; what matters being hand built has nothing to do with
production.


Irrelevant, since I never said it did.

Being in production has nothing to do with how something is built or
what that something is, McCrap.


Where did I say it did, Chimp****?

It was implied above in "rockets are hand built" Mc Crap.


Oh, it was IMPLIED. In other words, you're listening to the voices in
your head instead of what others say, Chimp****.


snip ranting bile


Hearing those voices in your head again, I see.

Being in production also has nothing to do with whether you can buy
your own personal copy or not. For example, Falcon 9 and Dragon are
both 'in production'. You just get it as a package that includes
launching it for you.

The word production in American English implies continuous manufacture
for sale. SpaceX manufactures as needed for their own use. SpaceX is
selling launch services, not space ships, Space Cadet McCrap.


The word 'production' in American English MEANS "the action of making
or manufacturing from components or raw materials, or the process of
being so manufactured. "the production of chemical weapons" synonyms:
manufacture, making, construction, building, fabrication, assembly,
creation; mass-production "the production of washing machines"

As you can see, it has nothing to do with 'continuous', nor is there
anything about 'sale', regardless of what the voices in your head are
currently whispering to you, Schizo Chimp****.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:

snip

I claim that something is DESIGNED for a specific minimum performance.

Of course it is and based on the knowledge one has at the time.

If that was not true, you would have to tear every airplane down after
every flight, which we obviously do not do.

Nope.


Yep. You just agreed, above, Chimp.

Will you be the poster boy for tunnel vision again this year?


Lack of response noted.

I responded but you didn't understand the response.


Lack of response noted.

I responded but you didn't understand the response.


You test fly the design looking for design discrepancies and errors.

After the design is verified, it goes into production and the required
periodic inspections may or may not find subtle design flaws such as
a gusset that is under strength and needs to be beefed up.


And those 'required periodic inspections' are based on what, Chimp?

History, McCrap.


Wrong, Chimp****.


Correct, McCrap.


Well of course I'm correct, Chimp****.

Nope, McCrap, you are wrong.

Do you think the FAA sets inspection times arbitrarily or do you think
the times are based on some historical data?


And there are several kinds of periodic inspections; the minimums
required by the FAA for everybody, additional inspections required by
an AD by the FAA because something was found not to last as long as
expected, and inspections required by the manufacturer during early
fielding of the product.


And it's that last set that's based on minimum design performance. You
know, like the ten uses of a Falcon 9 that SpaceX calls out that Mezei
is arguing about.

The arguement you started was about generalities, not some specific
of SpaceX, McCrap.


Mezei claims that you cannot know that you will meet that minimum
performance unless you tear every airplane apart after every flight
and fly them to destruction.

I don't care what Mezei claims.


Then why the **** are you even in this discussion?

Why the **** do you care?


Rhetorical question. Look it up.

YOU claim that you get "short maintenance and inspection time
requirements" (that 'minimum performance' I'm talking about) and that
then you do "maintenance and inspection" and that those times MIGHT
lengthen with experience.

Nope; the comment was specifically about engines and things like engine
part replacement times and engine overhaul times. This is called "service
life", not performance.


And "service life" is part of the engineering "design performance",
Chimp****.

Nope, two separate, but often, related things, McCrap.


Yep, the whole works is 'design performance'. Speaking of 'tunnel
vision', there's your narrow definition of 'performance'.

Nope, e.g. how much power an engine puts out is performance, how long
it continues to output that power is service life, McCrap.


Yep, e.g. both are 'design performance', Chimp****. Just because you
can call something 'thrust' doesn't make it 'not performance'. Same
with 'service life'. Just because something falls in a category
doesn't make it not 'design performance', which is the whole
enchilada.

Straight from the McCrap unabridged dictionary...


--
Jim Pennino

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

In sci.physics JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-06-22 19:31, wrote:

Most of this is apples and oranges as Spacex is not producing certified
aircraft.


McCall had argued SpaceX can't change its design because it is in
production.


That is just stupid; they are unlikely to ever go into production.


Yes, it is just stupid. Which is why I never said it.

I certainly didn't say you did, McCrap.


I certainly didn't say you said I did, Chimp****.

Then why talk to me about it other than to be argumentative, McCrap?


Then why talk to me about it other than to be argumentative,
Chimp****?

You started, again, McCrap.



For the anal, production is when you can call up the company and
have their product delivered, which is not the SpaceX business
model.


I pointed out to Mr Mezei some time ago that rockets are hand built
and aren't like cars at all. I don't think the boy reads very well.

Morgan cars are hand built and in production, McCrap.


How nice for them. What payload do they have to LEO?

Irrelevant; what matters being hand built has nothing to do with
production.


Irrelevant, since I never said it did.

Then why bring up hand built in the first place, McCrap, or are you going
to lie and say you didn't?

Being in production has nothing to do with how something is built or
what that something is, McCrap.


Where did I say it did, Chimp****?

It was implied above in "rockets are hand built" Mc Crap.


Oh, it was IMPLIED. In other words, you're listening to the voices in
your head instead of what others say, Chimp****.

"I pointed out to Mr Mezei some time ago that rockets are hand built...".

Your words, McCrap. If hand built is of no significance, why bring it
up at all, McCrap?


snip ranting bile


Hearing those voices in your head again, I see.

Nope, just no point to responding to ranting bile and name calling.

Being in production also has nothing to do with whether you can buy
your own personal copy or not. For example, Falcon 9 and Dragon are
both 'in production'. You just get it as a package that includes
launching it for you.

The word production in American English implies continuous manufacture
for sale. SpaceX manufactures as needed for their own use. SpaceX is
selling launch services, not space ships, Space Cadet McCrap.


The word 'production' in American English MEANS "the action of making
or manufacturing from components or raw materials, or the process of
being so manufactured. "the production of chemical weapons" synonyms:
manufacture, making, construction, building, fabrication, assembly,
creation; mass-production "the production of washing machines"

As you can see, it has nothing to do with 'continuous', nor is there
anything about 'sale', regardless of what the voices in your head are
currently whispering to you, Schizo Chimp****.

The suffix "ing" in making and manufacturing implies an on going action,
McCrap.

As for sale, why else would a company be manufacturing something on
an on going basis, McCrap?



--
Jim Pennino

In article . com,
says...

rockets being hand built.

Just because there are humans in the production line doesn't mean
something is hand built.


Not sure if SpaceX uses carbon fabric or carbon threads to do its carbon
structures. With carbon threads, you have to have a robot lay the
thread (pre=preg with epoxy) on the mandrel in a precise layup
(directions, number of layers that intersec each other at specific
angles etc). Humans cannot achieve this. (the 787 fuselage is built that
way).

Their tanks are certainly an aluminum lithium alloy. I'm unsure about
the rest of the structure of the stages, but I'd guess aluminum there
too. Flights which use a fairing use a composite payload fairing.

Reference (found in 10 seconds of Googling, because it was the first
link at the top of my first search):

Falcon 9 Payload User's Guide
http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/f...ers_guide_rev_
2.0.pdf

With fabric, more human intervention is possible on positioning the
fabric layers over mandrel and then wrapping it in bag and using vacuum
pumps to draw the epoxy everywhere without any air bubbles.

Building the engines cannot be done by hand as it requires computer
precision. So a human may be pushing buttons, but a machine makes the
shapes very precisely.

I wouldn't say "cannot" because machinists in the aerospace industry
have quite mad skills. There's a reason they're paid quite well. But
yes, I'm sure SpaceX has automated as much as they can during production
because it's more efficient and can be more precise.

Not sure how SpaceX puts the fuselage of rockets together. Is it single
piece cylinders on top of each other held with rivets ? In this case,
manual riveting is possible, but so is robotic. (Airbus has robotic
riveting for most of its planes).

OMFG! Read the PDF above. Lots of info in there. Google is your
friend!

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.

In article om,
says...

On 2016-06-23 18:58, wrote:
SpaceX manufactures as needed for their own use. SpaceX is
selling launch services, not space ships, Space Cadet McCrap.


Obviously the case for commercial launches. But what about NASA
launches to ISS ? I assume NASA buys the Dragon spacecraft and owns it?

Wrong. They're buying cargo delivery service. That's kind of the whole
point of "commercial cargo". Paying for services instead of hardware
that NASA middle management will want to micro-manage (at a very high
cost).

What about stage2 and stage1 ? Do they remain SpaceX property despite
being lauched by NASA ?

Or does KSC and Houston mission controls really just play an observer
role in this and Hawthorne is the real driver seat ?

NASA does not launch *any* Falcons. Mission control for Falcon is is
Hawthorne California. Watch the live stream of a launch sometime!


(NASA TV seems to make it look like KSC and Houston play a major role
with Hawthorne just "monitoring things".

Don't watch NASA TV. Watch the SpaceX live-stream!

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.

In article om,
says...

On 2016-06-25 08:54, Jeff Findley wrote:
http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/f...ers_guide_rev_
2.0.pdf

Thanks. To show that there are continual improvements instead of fixed
design:
##
As of summer 2015, Falcon 9 is upgraded from its previous v1.1
configuration (flown from 2013 ? summer 2015). Unused margin on the
engines has been released to increase thrust. The airframe and thrust
structures have been reinforced to accommodate the additional thrust and
increase reliability. The upgraded vehicle also includes first-stage
recovery systems, to allow SpaceX to return the first stage to the
launch site after completion of primary mission requirements.
##

Except that increase in thrust likely didn't require any hardware
changes. The increase was quite likely done in software based on hard
data from many ground tests and many Falcon 9 flights. That's not quite
the same as changing the design. It's literally just tapping into
"unused margin on the engines".

However, while that document mentions the tanks are aluminium/lithium, I
didn't see the nature of the outer skin. But did find a reference to "

Likely because there is no external skin, except on the parts of the
vehicle between the tanks, over the thrust structure, and between the
stages. Surely the LOX tanks are insulated, but I don't know the
details if there is insulation covered by an external skin (unlikely) or
if the LOX tank has external spray on foam insulation (more likely) or
something else.

"Falcon 9?s walls are made of aluminum-lithium alloy, a material made
stronger and lighter than aluminum by the addition of lithium."

But just after that:

"Inside the two stages are two large tanks each capped with an aluminum
dome, which store liquid oxygen and rocket-grade kerosene (RP-1) engine
propellants.

So it isn't clear to me if the skin of the stage 1 is the tank or if it
is a skin over the tank.

They're describing the end caps of the tanks. There likely is no outer
skin over the tanks. Likely just a layer of insulation over the LOX
tank.

The Interstage and payload are documented as composite skins.

Ok.

I recall seeing large composite structures in some photos of SpaceX
facilities. I was under the impression that SpaceX had extensive use of
composites for the rocket.

the biggest composite bits are for the payload fairing, which is quite
large. The interstage is indeed made of composites. The landing legs
are carbon composite and aluminum honeycomb.

Since I work for Siemens PLM Software, I know they use our software to
design the composite structures:

SpaceX, Leading space-launch company cuts development time from 70 to 85
percent with Fibersim

https://www.plm.automation.siemens.c...ch/viewResourc
e.html?resourceId=29661

Cool that they have pneumatic systems instead of pyrothecnic for both
the release from launch pad and for stage separation.

Because pneumatic systems are inherently reusable. Pyros are not only
"one time use", but can cause collateral damage. Great for separating
ICBM stages, but not so great if you plan on reusing the first stage.

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.