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 Falcon launch failuer



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 30th 15, 09:09 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Brian-Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default SpaceX Falcon launch failuer

Well these things happen as tey say, but it is a big coincidence.
Not sure I really believe in gremlins or ghools but certainly there are
strange trends in the universe which we do not understand.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Rick Jones" wrote in message
...
Alain Fournier wrote:
On 6/28/15 12:42 PM, Brian Gaff wrote :
The last one was Russian. maybe there is a gremlin at work.


When was the last failure at Mars? Maybe the Martian gremlin as
moved to Earth.


I thought the Martian creature was a ghoul?-)

rick jones
--
a wide gulf separates "what if" from "if only"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...



  #12  
Old July 1st 15, 03:35 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default SpaceX Falcon launch failuer

On 6/29/15 1:23 PM, Rick Jones wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:
On 6/28/15 12:42 PM, Brian Gaff wrote :
The last one was Russian. maybe there is a gremlin at work.


When was the last failure at Mars? Maybe the Martian gremlin as
moved to Earth.


I thought the Martian creature was a ghoul?-)

rick jones


Oh! yes, you are correct. I'm in shame. Confusing ghouls with gremlins.
Anyone who has done mythical beings 101 should know the difference. :-)


Alain Fournier

  #13  
Old July 2nd 15, 05:00 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default SpaceX Falcon launch failuer

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 8:09:05 PM UTC+12, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Well these things happen as tey say, but it is a big coincidence.
Not sure I really believe in gremlins or ghools but certainly there are
strange trends in the universe which we do not understand.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Rick Jones" wrote in message
...
Alain Fournier wrote:
On 6/28/15 12:42 PM, Brian Gaff wrote :
The last one was Russian. maybe there is a gremlin at work.


When was the last failure at Mars? Maybe the Martian gremlin as
moved to Earth.


I thought the Martian creature was a ghoul?-)

rick jones
--
a wide gulf separates "what if" from "if only"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...


It was Musk's 44th birthday.
  #14  
Old July 2nd 15, 09:34 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
snidely
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,303
Default SpaceX Falcon launch failuer

Brian-Gaff noted that:
No gremlins are not bound by the laws of the physical world. they are there
to make sure people do not get too full of themselves and to leave that odd
doubt that superstition has some merit.
Like the number 13 for example.
Still being serious for a moment, I do think its a shame that cargo flights
do not have some kind of fail safe system or even an escape system as by now
there must be a lot of bits of space hardware strewn around the planet in and
out of orbit.


The switch to Dragon 2 may accomplish that, per a comment from SpaceX.
I'm about to wrap up my broadcast day, so the cite will have to wait.

/dps

--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean
  #15  
Old July 2nd 15, 12:12 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default SpaceX Falcon launch failuer

In article mn.105e7df7ff6201e4.127094@snitoo,
says...

Brian-Gaff noted that:
No gremlins are not bound by the laws of the physical world. they are there
to make sure people do not get too full of themselves and to leave that odd
doubt that superstition has some merit.
Like the number 13 for example.
Still being serious for a moment, I do think its a shame that cargo flights
do not have some kind of fail safe system or even an escape system as by now
there must be a lot of bits of space hardware strewn around the planet in and
out of orbit.


The switch to Dragon 2 may accomplish that, per a comment from SpaceX.
I'm about to wrap up my broadcast day, so the cite will have to wait.


They're also switching to an upgraded Falcon 9 launch vehicle. So
depending on what caused the recent failure in the v1.1 vehicle will
determine how soon v1.2 can fly.

http://aviationweek.com/blog/spacexs-new-spin-falcon-9

v1.2 can lift more payload, so it will be able to carry a wider range of
satellites to orbit. On missions with existing payloads (e.g. cargo
Dragon), it will allow more fuel margins for landings back at Florida.


It's looking, to me anyway, like something in the pressurization system
for the 2nd stage failed and caused the sudden O2 tank overpressure.
Some have even speculated that the cold helium pressurization system
could have caused LOX to condense out of the air which caused a fire
(this speculation based on Musks statement that the failure was
"counterintuitive").

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer
  #16  
Old July 2nd 15, 05:11 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Rick Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 685
Default SpaceX Falcon launch failuer

Jeff Findley wrote:
It's looking, to me anyway, like something in the pressurization system
for the 2nd stage failed and caused the sudden O2 tank overpressure.


Did someone call for a cryo-stir?-)

rick
--
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth...
where do you want to be today?
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
  #17  
Old July 2nd 15, 09:44 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Niels Jørgen Kruse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default SpaceX Falcon launch failuer

Rick Jones wrote:

Jeff Findley wrote:
It's looking, to me anyway, like something in the pressurization system
for the 2nd stage failed and caused the sudden O2 tank overpressure.


Did someone call for a cryo-stir?-)


The second stage had just started engine prechill.

--
Mvh./Regards, Niels Jørgen Kruse, Vanløse, Denmark
  #18  
Old July 3rd 15, 05:58 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default SpaceX Falcon launch failuer



Dragon V2 will always have the Draco thruster clusters. These are
used as the escape rockets for the manned version and there's no
reason they couldn't save the payload on unmanned launches. This
could lead to a large decrease in the cost of insuring a cargo if it's
going on Dragon V2.



hey something we agree on. with the high cost of satellites it would be a win win.

wonder if the sat owners would want any sat that went thru this rebuilt?

many sats re built for a 15 year lifetime. going thru this might cause long term questions..
  #19  
Old July 6th 15, 12:38 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default SpaceX Falcon launch failuer

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 4:58:27 PM UTC+12, bob haller wrote:

Dragon V2 will always have the Draco thruster clusters. These are
used as the escape rockets for the manned version and there's no
reason they couldn't save the payload on unmanned launches. This
could lead to a large decrease in the cost of insuring a cargo if it's
going on Dragon V2.



hey something we agree on. with the high cost of satellites it would be a win win.

wonder if the sat owners would want any sat that went thru this rebuilt?

many sats re built for a 15 year lifetime. going thru this might cause long term questions..


Insurers could promote the use of escape rockets for unmanned payloads if they reduced insurance premiums to save more than the cost of the rockets. This they are unlikely to do.

If a launch provider like SpaceX wished to self-insure, they might elect to put reusable escape rockets on the launcher and collect premiums.

  #20  
Old July 6th 15, 12:43 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default SpaceX Falcon launch failuer

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 3:39:24 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Sunday, June 28, 2015 at 8:23:07 PM UTC-4, bob haller wrote:
On Sunday, June 28, 2015 at 7:39:00 PM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

On Sunday, June 28, 2015 at 3:34:23 PM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

On Sunday, June 28, 2015 at 11:49:43 AM UTC-4, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
It appears it failed right before staging.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/28/tech...et/index..html

This is the second failed resupply attempt I a row I believe.

This isn't great for SpaceX or the station right now.

better to have a failure on a cargo craft, than a manned flight


Always the master of the obvious, Bob...


people like you need all the help you can get.....


And yet you seem to perpetually be the one getting it wrong. As you
do below...


the cargo runs were also a good test for the coming soon manned versions


No, Bob. Dragon V1 on Falcon 9 V1.0 is a very different vehicle than
Dragon V2 on Falcon 9 V1.1 or Falcon Heavy.


elon musk stated that since theres a lot in common between cargo and the new manned launcher the cargo runs would help test the systems.



Cite? We're all aware of your filtering problems, Bob. I'm pretty
sure what he said amounted to testing SOME of the systems, not that
"the cargo runs are also a good test for the coming soon manned
versions".


diid anyone really believe space x would have a perfect success rate foorever?? some failures are to be anticipated


I thought his comments rather terse -


That's because if you want long statements you have to wait for the
engineering analysis of the event so that there are details. But of
course, you wouldn't know anything about actually engineering or
management of same...


There you go again - confusing the meaning of terse and concise and blaming others for your own confusion. It wasn't the brevity I was pointing to, it was the ungraciousness of the response. Especially his use of the word unintuitive in relation to the lox pressure excursion. It seems he wanted to say his vehicle was attacked but thought better of that until a more thorough analysis was completed.

It was his birthday and this was a special launch for him for that reason.




--
"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

 




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 Falcon launch failuer Greg \(Strider\) Moore Space Station 10 July 3rd 15 03:13 AM
SpaceX Announcement about Falcon 9/Dragon launch Alan Erskine[_3_] Space Shuttle 0 April 26th 12 04:06 AM
SpaceX still mum on Falcon 9 launch date Dr J R Stockton[_64_] Policy 4 April 3rd 10 11:07 PM
SpaceX Falcon Fails on Third Launch Attempt Mark R. Whittington Policy 38 August 8th 08 02:30 PM
LIVE: SpaceX/Falcon 1 launch John Space Shuttle 1 March 25th 06 06:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:20 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.