SpaceX Falcon 9

[Apollo13]

supermen пишет:
2 проц от стоимости ПН не такая уж и жадность

400 / 2000 = 0,2 = 20%

"Вот на эти два процента я и живу!" (с) ULA анекдот

[silentpom]

но вообще есть чему поучиться. Боинг и Локхид злейшие враги, как они сражались вокруг X-32/X-35. Как F-35 против сайлент игла. И боинг выгонял нафиг локхид с рынка гражданской авиации, а локхид мстил ему в пятом поколении. А вот тут они возьми и договорись! и проканывало, пока какой-то псих с улицы не пришел

[Seerndv]

Дмитрий В. пишет:

Seerndv пишет:

Дмитрий В. пишет:
Таки потребный объем охлажденного газа гораздо меньше ;-)

- а кто-то сомневался?    
А вот потом ... таки объём подогревом увеличивать бум?    
Как оно, у Маска-то?R

Разумеется. Весь смысл гелиевой системы наддува состоит в том, чтобы хранить газ при возможно более низкой температуре, а в баки подавать с подогревом. Вы же сами Менделеева-Колапейрона упомянули. Там же считается все почти на пальцах.

- да я вот на эту картинку смотрю и таки думаю:




- и где элементы для выпуска гелия, короче обвязка?!
А должно быть согласно:

Support strut probable cause of Falcon 9 failure
Updated at 9 p.m. EDT with SpaceX statement
A faulty support strut inside the Falcon 9 rocket's second stage liquid oxygen tank likely broke free during a June 28 space station resupply launch, destroying the booster minutes after liftoff in a cloud of debris over the Atlantic Ocean, SpaceX chief Elon Musk said Monday.
While noting the investigation into last month's failure is not complete, Musk told reporters Monday the evidence shows a weakened bracket holding a high-pressure helium vessel inside the Falcon 9's second stage is the likely culprit.
Several helium tanks, each pressurized to about 5,500 pounds per square inch, are mounted inside the rocket's second stage liquid oxygen tank. The helium is routed through the second stage's Merlin engine, where the helium warms up and injected into the rocket's propellant tanks to pressurize the stage as the launcher burns fuel, keeping the tanks structurally sound.
Musk said SpaceX engineers analyzing extensive telemetry data fr om the rocket, along with physical testing on the ground, concluded a support strut holding one of the helium tanks likely fractured near a bolt attach point.
The high-pressure helium tank, immersed inside the super-cold liquid oxygen, wanted to shoot to the top of the stage, similar to the way an inflated beach ball rises to the surface of a swimming pool, Musk said.
"It may seem sort of counterintuitive that, as the rocket's accelerating, that something immersed in the tank would actually want to go up more, but that's basically what happened," Musk said. "The buoyancy increases proprotionate to the G-loading. At approximately 3.2 Gs, this strut holding down one of the helium bottles appears to have snapped, and as a result, releasing a lot of helium into the upper stage oxygen tank and causing an over-pressure event quite quickly."
Musk said less than nine-tenths of a second passed fr om the first indication of a problem until the data link between the rocket and mission control cut off.
Telemetry logged from the June 28 launch showed a momentary drop in helium pressure, then a rise back to the system's starting pressure, Musk said, initially puzzling investigators probing the mishap.
One explanation for the data signature is that the tank broke free, introducing helium into the liquid oxygen tank until a kink in a feed line stopped the leak, allowing pressure in the helium system to rise again.
The failure occurred 2 minutes, 18 seconds after liftoff from Cape Canaveral, when the Falcon 9's nine first stage Merlin engines were still firing, according to a SpaceX statement released Monday. Because the second stage was not ignited, the propellant tanks were full, leaving little room to add high-pressure gas before rupturing the stage.
"Within the course of a second, this caused enough helium to be released, we believe, to over-pressurize the liquid oxygen tank in the upper stage," Musk said. "You don't really need to release a lot of helium because there's only about 2 percent gaseous volume in the stage because the upper stage propellant is not being consumed."
SpaceX engineers, who are working with NASA, the U.S. Air Force and the FAA in the investigation, have no other smoking gun on a source for last month's failure.
"There are just things that make (the strut explanation) more probable rather than less probable," Musk said, explaining a analysis method he called "acoustic triangulation."
"We've got microphones, technically accelerometers, at various points on the upper stage, and by looking at the exact timing of high-frequency events on the stage, we can, by acoustic triangulation, identify the location wh ere the snap occurred or the breakage occurred via sound."
The evidence in the accelerometer data points to the helium tank support bracket. The strut came from a SpaceX supplier, which Musk refused to identify. He said the component, made mostly of steel, was about 2 feet long and an inch thick.
"The strut that we believe failed was designed in material certified to handle 10,000 pounds of force, but actually failed at 2,000 pounds force, which is a five-fold difference," Musk said in a conference call with reporters.
Photos of the strut taken before the launch showed no obvious sign of a flaw, and Musk said thousands of the brackets have flown on previous Falcon 9 missions without a problem. He said follow-up tests of thousands of similar struts since last month's crash revealed several units failed well below their 10,000 pounds force specification.
"We did some material analysis ... and found there were problems with the grain structure of the steel," Musk said. "It hadn't been formed correctly, so we think that was the problem — a bad bolt that snuck through, that looked good, but wasn't actually good in the inside."
The rocket's first stage uses a similar pressurization system with the same type of tanks and support struts, according to Musk, who said the brackets will be pull-tested one-by-one before being installed on future launchers.
"No matter what something is certified to handle, we're not going to believe that," Musk said. "We're simply going to individually unit test every single strut."
A statement issued by SpaceX after Musk's press briefing said the company will "no longer use these particular struts for flight applications."

The Falcon 9 rocket disintegrated about 2 minutes, 18 seconds after liftoff from Cape Canaveral on June 28. Credit: Walter Scriptunas II/Scriptunas Images


The bracket suspected in the June 28 rocket failure would not have experienced the high loads it saw in flight during any of SpaceX's standard pre-launch tests, eliminating any chance of detecting the problem before liftoff. Because the rocket was rapidly accelerating at the point of the failure, the helium canister would have rapidly risen inside the full liquid oxygen tank — faster than under normal "1 G" conditions on the ground.
"One of those struts appears to have failed, and as a result, was unable to hold the bottle down, and so the helium bottle would have shot to the top of the tank at high speed because of the extreme buyoancy at the failure point of 3.2 Gs," Musk said. "Although we fire the stages on the ground, and we do a stage hold-down firing at the launch pad, the bouyancy force is only 1 G, of course, because we're not accelerating. So it would have passed through all of those tests without having an issue because it only sees high G-loading in flight."
It was not clear whether the errant helium bottle struck the outer wall of the liquid oxygen tank.
There is no way to test rocket stages on Earth to fully replicate flight conditions, Musk said.
"That would be the ultimate test, but there's no such physical thing that exists on the Earth to do that," Musk said. "One is forced, therefore, to do these things by proxy, and the proxy is sometimes inadequate as turns out to be the case here."
Despite the rocket's dramatic high-altitude anomaly, which left the launcher in shards of wreckage raining down to Earth, the SpaceX-built Dragon cargo capsule fastened to the top of the Falcon 9 survived the failure.
Musk said mission controllers received data from the unmanned supply ship, which was packed with more than 4,000 pounds of cargo for the International Space Station, until it passed over the horizon, just before its destructive impact downrange in the Atlantic Ocean.
The capsule's recovery parachutes, normally used to retrieve the spaceship after it departs the International Space Station, were not programmed to deploy after a launch mishap. SpaceX plans to install software on future cargo missions to allow the chutes to unfurl during a launch contingency, Musk said.
"We could have saved Dragon if we had the right software," Musk said.
NASA officials say the value of the cargo lost on the June 28 failure was about $110 million. The equipment was uninsured.

File photo of SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk. Credit: Gene Blevins/LA Daily News


The supplies included a docking adapter needed for future human-rated spaceships in development by Boeing and SpaceX to end NASA's sole reliance on Russian Soyuz ferry craft to rotate crews to and from the space station. A spacesuit, important parts for the space station's water filtration system, and an array of experiments also crashed with the Dragon spacecraft.
Musk said the next Falcon 9 launch will not occur before September, but SpaceX has not identified which payload in the rocket's crammed manifest will go next.
Before last month's failure, Falcon 9 rockets were scheduled to launch in August with the U.S.-French Jason 3 oceanography satellite and the SES 9 communications craft. The next Dragon logistics flight to the space station — the eighth in a 15-mission, approximately $2 billion contract with NASA — was supposed to blast off in early September.
SpaceX briefed customers on the tentative results of the failure investigation last week, and "none of them have indicated diminished faith" in the company, Musk said.
But the inevitable delays will cost privately-held SpaceX, which says it has a backlog of up to $7 billion, including all its contract options. SpaceX and rival Arianespace win the lion's share of commercial satellite launch business, and Musk's company received permission in May to compete with United Launch Alliance, a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, for U.S. military launch contracts.
"The biggest penalty to SpaceX will be the delay of launch rate," Musk said. "It's sort of like an airline. If the flights don't take off, then you lose the revneue associated with that period. The lost revenue will be meaningful, in the hundreds of millions (of dollars) probably, because of the implied delays."
The additional testing prescribed to resolve the strut problem will increase the Falcon 9's production cost, Musk said, but should not affect the rocket's sales price. A Falcon 9 flight goes for approximately $61 million on the commercial market, according to information posted on SpaceX's website.
Musk admitted SpaceX may have become a "little bit complacent" after racking up more than 20 successful launches in a row, dating back to the company's earlier Falcon 1 rocket model. SpaceX's last total launch failure occurred in 2008, and the Falcon 9 itself was 18-for-18 going into the June 28 mission.
"We had some challenges there with the first Falcon 1 flights, and I think that instilled an extreme level of paranoia in the whole team," Musk said. "But seven years ago, which is when we had our last failure, the company was only about 500 people, and now we're 4,000 people. So the vast majority of the people at the company today had only ever seen success, and when you've only ever seen success, obviously you don't fear failure quite as much."
Musk sends a company-wide email before every launch, soliciting feedback from engineers who may be afraid to speak up to their mid-level managers about their concerns.
"The 20th time I send that email, it just seems like, 'There's Elon being paranoid again,'" Musk said. "It doesn't resonate with the same force, but I think now everyone at the company (realizes) the difficulties to get rockets to orbit successfully, and we'll be stronger for it."

- для протекания через теплообменный контур - The helium is routed through the second stage's Merlin engine, wh ere the helium warms up and injected into the rocket's propellant tanks to pressurize the stage as the launcher burns fuel, keeping the tanks structurally sound.

Оно конечно, может не в стяжке дело, штуцер тоже слабый элемент под структурным звуком  

[Salo]

Тренироваться будут на Jason-3:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/08/orb-4-cygnus-set-atlas-v-ride-ahead-antares-return/

SpaceX's updated schedule is understood to be eyeing a tightly packed salvo of launches, potentially opening with a Return To Flight mission from Vandenberg in October – per the latest source information in L2.

[Алексей Быков]

ЕМНИП Маск говорил, что перед взрывом давление Гелия вначале выросло , потом стало нормальным, потом БУМ.
Похоже, что или в магистрали возникла пробка и потом она вылетела, или клапан ошибочно программно или механически закрылся, а потом "пробился". Но было поздно - уже возникла цепная реакция потери механической целостности.

И да, он там вроде клапаны сам делал - потому что это удобно и дёшево. Я тоже клапаны сам делаю - но на РН их ставить мне и в голову не придёт.

[Искандер]

Гадание на кофейной гуще. Нужно ждать выводов расследования.
Может там вообще первоначально взрыва не было.
Скачок давления прорвал бак, давление сбросилось в норму из-за нарушения герметичности, но продолжающегося "наддува". Но высокие перегрузки в конце работы первой ступени продолжили разрушать ступень пока она окончательно не развалилась. А дальше БУМ!
Как по мне - так гораздо правдоподобней

[vlad7308]

так вроде предварительные выводы сформулированы уже две-три недели как.
и вероятно они же будут и окончательными.

лопнул один из кронштейнов крепления гелиевого бака 2ст

[Kap]

pk13 пишет:
Что касается пусков на ГПО, то наличие прибыли от них, мягко говоря, совсем не является фактом.

1) Т.е. прибыли от 61 (51, учитывая скидку первым покупателям) миллиона за запуск Фалькона-9 прибыли не обеспечивают, а 133 миллиона за запуск Фалькона-9 и Дракона (у Юлы только голый 401й Атлас стоит уже $ 168 М) - обеспечивают да такие что хватает на ГПО по "демпинговым" ценам, эксперименты с многоразовостью и гиперлуп на сдачу?
2) Она является фактом до тех пор пока СпейсИкс не привлекли за демпинг те же локхидо-боинги и арианспейс. А они почему-то не привлекают.

Алексей Быков пишет:
И да, он там вроде клапаны сам делал - потому что это удобно и дёшево. Я тоже клапаны сам делаю - но на РН их ставить мне и в голову не придёт.

Для начала, РН-то у вас есть чтобы ставить? Ну и официальная причина аварии пока что не самодельный клапан а покупная стойка.

[pk13]

Kap пишет:

2) Она является фактом до тех пор пока СпейсИкс не привлекли за демпинг те же локхидо-боинги и арианспейс. А они почему-то не привлекают.

Потому что "привлечение за демпинг" это, в данном случае, ваша фантазия. Особенно со стороны дотируемого государством арианспейса. Идите индийцев попробуйте привлечь, они давно уже демпингуют. Не зная всей объективной структуры доходов/расходов компании объявлять что-то фактом просто смешно. Когда будет IPO Спейсиксов (если будет), тогда и можно будет про факты рассуждать. Впрочем и тогда останутся сомнения (Элон мастер продаж "перегретых" акций PayPal).

[Kap]

pk13 пишет:
Потому что "привлечение за демпинг" это, в данном случае, ваша фантазия.

Да я-то в курсе, что его не было.

pk13 пишет:
Особенно со стороны дотируемого государством арианспейса.

Боинг и Локхид вы проигнорировали.

pk13 пишет:
Идите индийцев попробуйте привлечь, они давно уже демпингуют.

Да какие проблемы - идите в ZOG и привлекайте. Вопреки распространенному мнению, мировым правительством Белый Дом не является и все что он может сделать против индусского демпинга - не давать операторам спутников из США запускаться на индусских носителях. ИЧСХ американцы на PSLV и правда не слишком замечены.

pk13 пишет:
Не зная всей объективной структуры доходов/расходов компании объявлять что-то фактом просто смешно

Начинаю смеяться:
 

pk13 пишет: 
Спейс Х существует благодаря американскому государеву решению по программе поддержке частников.

Повторяю вопрос, как на 133 миллиона за корабль и ракету можно получать прибыль и при этом запускать одну ракету за 60 миллионов убыточно?

pk13 пишет:
Когда будет IPO Спейсиксов (если будет), тогда и можно будет про факты рассуждать.

Первичная продажа акций к фактам ни каким боком. СпейсИкс платит налоги и зарплаты так же как и любая другая компания, без разницы публичная или нет. Для этого она должна иметь прибыль, потому как финансировать за счет убыточной (в прошлом году, в позопрошлом была прибыль, про этот не в курсе) и датируемой Теслы не получится.

pk13 пишет:
тогда и можно будет про факты рассуждать.

Как бы уже сейчас есть факт - по той самой государевой программе СпейсИкс берет за ракету с кораблем меньше чем Юла попросила бы за одну ракету.

pk13 пишет:
Впрочем и тогда останутся сомнения (Элон мастер продаж "перегретых" акций PayPal).

Чисто для справки, доля Маска в Пэй Пэл была аж целых 11,7 %. Объяснять почему акционеры такого уровня вопросы за продажу компаний не решают надеюсь не надо?

[Искандер]

vlad7308 пишет:
так вроде предварительные выводы сформулированы уже две-три недели как.
и вероятно они же будут и окончательными.

лопнул один из кронштейнов крепления гелиевого бака 2ст

Мое предположение ни как не кассается причин скачка давления, но почему вдруг нормализовалось давление и что происходило дальше.

[pk13]

Kap пишет:
Повторяю вопрос, как на 133 миллиона за корабль и ракету можно получать прибыль и при этом запускать одну ракету за 60 миллионов убыточно?

pk13 пишет:
Когда будет IPO Спейсиксов (если будет), тогда и можно будет про факты рассуждать.

Первичная продажа акций к фактам ни каким боком. СпейсИкс платит налоги и зарплаты так же как и любая другая компания, без разницы публичная или нет. Для этого она должна иметь прибыль, потому как финансировать за счет убыточной (в прошлом году, в позопрошлом была прибыль, про этот не в курсе) и датируемой Теслы не получится.

Про убыток вы сами придумали, я лично считаю, что Спейсиксы в пусках без Дракона работают примерно в ноль. Юла давно высказалась на тему объявляемых Спейсами цен, поэтому вопрос с Боингом/Локхидом я проигнорировал. Завершаю оффтоп, признаюсь, что объективно оценивать работу Маска мне мешает личная к нему неприязнь.

[Зловредный]

pk13 пишет:
признаюсь, что объективно оценивать работу Маска мне мешает личная к нему неприязнь.

Вы лично знакомы?

[Штуцер]

[silentpom]

Зловредный пишет:

pk13 пишет:
признаюсь, что объективно оценивать работу Маска мне мешает личная к нему неприязнь.

Вы лично знакомы?

биография так или иначе опубликована. и ЧСВ over 9000 и крайне болезненное самолюбие. не очень себя красиво вел, когда оттер от дел создателей прототипа Теслы. Но кто из великих без греха?

[Старый]

А мне честно говоря его морда не нравится.

[Feol]

Тех, кто в космонавтике будет мухлевать, надо бить по морде. По наглой Масковской морде..  

[LRV_75]

Господа, мы палимся 

[Alex_II]

LRV_75 пишет:
Господа, мы палимся

Да вы давным давно спалились... никто от вас объективности и не ждет...

[Salo]

http://spacenews.com/house-science-chairman-bucks-at-special-treatment-for-spacex/

House Science Chairman Bucks At Special Treatment for SpaceX
by Dan Leone — August 13, 2015
 
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Science Committee, wants NASA to explain why it stood up an independent review team to investigate Orbital ATK's commercial cargo failure, but didn't do the same after a SpaceX cargo mission was lost. Credit: NASA/Aubrey Gemignani  
 
WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Science Committee prodded NASA about what he suspects is special treatment accorded SpaceX following the failure of the company's Falcon 9 rocket on an International Space Station resupply mission.
In an Aug. 4 letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) asked why the space agency formed an independent review team to investigate the Oct. 28 failure of Orbital ATK's Antares rocket during a Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) mission, but did not do the same following the June 28 failure of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket on a similar mission.
"The discrepancy between the approaches taken by NASA in response to these two similar events raises questions about not only the equity and fairness of NASA's process for initiating independent accident investigations, but also the fidelity of the investigations themselves," Smith wrote.
According to the letter, NASA's CRS contracts with Orbital ATK and SpaceX give the agency discretion to independently investigate mishaps during commercial cargo launches, even though NASA does not have any statutory imperative to do so.  CRS launches are licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration, making most accident investigations the responsibility of the launch provider.
Neither Orbital ATK nor SpaceX have concluded their respective failure reviews. But Orbital ATK has blamed Antares' AJ-26 main engine — which the company is replacing for future missions — while SpaceX has said a faulty strut on Falcon 9's upper stage appears to be the culprit.
According to Smith's letter, NASA detailed its decision to investigate Orbital ATK's failure, but not SpaceX's, in a pair of memos written by Bill Gerstenmaier, the agency's associate administrator for human exploration and operations.
Smith's letter, which cited — but did not reproduce — one of the Gerstenmaier memos, said NASA appointed an official from its Launch Services Program as a "primary interface" to the SpaceX investigation. "We would like the [launch services program] representative to be considered a member of the investigative team," Gerstenmaier wrote in a memo to SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell, according to Smith's letter.
Orbital ATK spokesman Barron Beneski declined to comment on Smith's allegation, first reported by Reuters, of a double standard on NASA's part.
"We'll leave that for others to decide," Beneski wrote in an Aug. 11 email. "The inner workings of our [accident investigation] team are confidential, other [than] to say they've left no stone unturned and have availed themselves of all possible resources."
SpaceX spokesman John Taylor declined to comment for this story.
NASA spokeswoman Tabatha Thompson declined to say why the agency stood up an independent investigation team for the Orbital ATK failure, but not the SpaceX failure.
"NASA has received the letters and looks forward to reviewing them," Thomspon wrote in an Aug. 12 email. "Under the authority of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which licensed the launch, and per FAA regulations, SpaceX is leading its mishap investigation, as Orbital ATK is leading the investigation into its October 2014 mishap, both with FAA oversight. NASA is participating in both efforts and is confident both companies will understand the specifics of their respective mishaps, learn from them, and correct the issues so they can return to flight."
While Orbital ATK has no aspirations to fly crew to the space station, SpaceX holds a $2.6 billion NASA Commercial Crew contract to develop a human-rated version of its Dragon space capsule and Falcon 9 rocket. SpaceX could begin launching ISS crews as soon as 2017.
Smith referenced that in his letter.
"One would expect that NASA would be more interested in independently ascertaining the technical root cause failure of a vehicle that will use similar components for a future human mission," Smith wrote.
SpaceX is designing a crew escape system for the human-rated version of its Dragon capsule, and Shotwell has said the system would have kept astronauts safe, had any been aboard during the June 28 launch failure.
Smith asked NASA to respond in writing to his letter by Aug. 17.