Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
couchmaster
climber
|
|
Are you saying that the timeline is wrong for that story to be true? As far as military capabilities go we would not know if they can do this from public records more than likely. I have personally witnessed false capability statements that I knew to be lies coming from the US Army, and have worked recently with a Navy guy who told me they do the same thing about Carrier capabilities. The military has all kinds of sh#t they don't share with anyone and we don't know about. I'm fine with that.
Dated August 24 2016 http://spacenews.com/chinese-group-to-buy-israels-spacecom-satellite-operator-for-285-million/
"Apart from regulatory and shareholder approvals, the acquisition also hinges on the successful launch of Spacecom’s Amos 6 satellite, which the company said is scheduled to take place in the first week of September.
Opps, looks like a sale fail, as noted above in Shashas article. Just an ordinary man is Wang Jing:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-canal-insight-idUSBREA4309E20140504
Timeline:
8/24/16 Sale of Spacecom to Chinese company announced.
9/2/16 SpaceX blows up
9/4/16 President snubbed at G20 summit in China
Obama Snubbed - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/09/04/president-obama-china-united-states-xi-jinping/89862210/
"That the failure would take place during preparations for a static fire test, well before the engines briefly ignited, let alone during the launch itself, made the explosion all the more surprising and shocking. " from http://spacenews.com/analysis-how-spacexs-spectacular-pre-flight-failure-fueled-a-jump-in-hasty-conclusions/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-reviewing-3000-channels-of-telemetry-in-failure-probe/
It could easily be sabotage. Or just as easily be a faulty O ring or some such. They are looking into it, if it was a military strike and the SpaceX investigators do learn of it and have evidence, we still may never know. That's where endless internet speculation comes in.
Regardless.
"The Inaugural Meeting of CPC Beijing Xinwei Telecom Technology Group Co.,N Ltd. Committee and the First Party Congress Were Successfully Convened
On December 8th, 2014, the inaugural meeting of CPC Beijing Xinwei Telecom Technology Group Co., Ltd. Committee and the First Party Congress were successfully convened in Baoguo Hall, Xinwei Building.
Wang Jing, President and Chairman of Xinwei Group, attended the meeting and extended congratulations on the convening of the meeting on behalf of Xinwei Group. He reviewed the fidelity of every Xinwei member towards party’s cause within the last 19 years since Xinwei’s establishment, especially since the restructuring of Xinwei. He pointed out: “Since the restructuring of Xinwei on December 31st, 2009, we have set the general goal of “Devotion to the Country”, and fostered the spirit of “Devote to the Public and Sacrifice for Others, Fulfill Commitments and Serve the Country”. Both our goal and spirit are in accordance with the party’s guidelines, lines, and requirements. Today, four years after the restructuring, with the achievements we have made one after another, we establish the CPC committee. It responds to the call of our times and is an important event of our group”."
|
|
Winemaker
Sport climber
Yakima, WA
|
|
The Blue Origin escape capsule test this morning was amazing. The crew capsule escape system was fired at about 16,000 ft. then the rocket finished climbing to 250,000 ft (or something) and landed successfully. They've reused the same rocket five times!
Here's a video link. Go to near the end, as there were lots of launch holds.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
labrat
Trad climber
Erik O. Auburn, CA
|
|
"The Blue Origin escape capsule test this morning was amazing."
Totally agree!
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/implication-of-sabotage-adds-intrigue-to-spacex-investigation/2016/09/30/5bb60514-874c-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html
Implication of sabotage adds intrigue to SpaceX investigation
by Christian Davenport September 30
The long-running feud between Elon Musk’s space company and its fierce competitor United Launch Alliance took a bizarre twist this month when a SpaceX employee visited its facilities at Cape Canaveral, Fla., and asked for access to the roof of one of ULA’s buildings.
About two weeks earlier, one of SpaceX’s rockets blew up on a launchpad while it was awaiting an engine test. As part of the investigation, SpaceX officials had come across something suspicious they wanted to check out, according to three industry officials with knowledge of the episode. SpaceX had still images from video that appeared to show an odd shadow, then a white spot on the roof of a nearby building leased by ULA, a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing.
The SpaceX representative explained to the ULA officials on site that it was trying to run down all possible leads in what was a cordial, not accusatory, encounter, according to the industry sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.
The building, which had been used to refurbish rocket motors known as the SMARF, is just more than a mile away from the launchpad and has a clear line of sight to it. A representative from ULA ultimately denied the SpaceX employee access to the roof and instead called Air Force investigators, who inspected the roof and didn’t find anything connecting it to the rocket explosion, the officials said.
The interaction between SpaceX and ULA has not been previously reported. It is the latest odd development in the mystery surrounding the explosion of SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket on Sept. 1. The rocket blew up while it was being fueled ahead of an engine test fire, creating a huge fireball that charred the launchpad and rattled buildings miles away.
12 of the most stunning SpaceX photos
View Photos From launch to floating in space, a look at SpaceX through the years.
Elon Musk, SpaceX’s founder and chief executive, has called the failure “the most difficult and complex” the company has ever had. About a week after the explosion, he pleaded with the public to turn in video or audio recordings of the blast and said that the company has not ruled out sabotage as a factor.
“Particularly trying to understand the quieter bang sound a few seconds before the fireball goes off,” he wrote on Twitter. “May come from rocket or something else.”
Since then, SpaceX, which is leading the investigation with help from the Air Force, NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration, said it is narrowing down on the cause of the explosion, focusing on a breach in a second-stage helium system.
At a conference in Mexico this week, Musk said that finding out what went wrong is the company’s “absolute top priority,” but he said what caused the explosion is still unknown.
“We’ve eliminated all of the obvious possibilities for what occurred there,” he said. “So what remains are the less probable answers.”
He didn’t say what those might be.
The Air Force’s 45th Space Wing, which is helping SpaceX with the investigation, declined to comment because the investigation is ongoing.
A SpaceX statement said that the “Accident Investigation Team has an obligation to consider all possible causes of the anomaly, and we aren’t commenting on any specific potential cause until the investigation is complete.”
SpaceX and ULA are heated rivals that are competing over national security contracts that together are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. For nearly a decade, ULA had a monopoly on those contracts as the only launch provider certified by the Air Force.
But in 2014, SpaceX sued the Air Force for the right to compete. Last year, the parties settled and SpaceX was finally granted its certification. As a result, ULA fired its chief executive and hired a new one who vowed to compete with SpaceX.
This week, 10 Republican House members, many friendly to ULA, told NASA that SpaceX should not be leading the investigation and that authority should be turned over to the federal government.
Even though the investigation continues, SpaceX has said it intends to return to flight as soon as November, a timeline that has drawn industry skepticism.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
The hurricane and aftermath will undoubtedly affect all launch manifests from Cape Canaveral. SpaceX still has a scheduled Iridium satellite package scheduled from Vandenburg AFB in November.
I would also wager that their next launch from the Cape will involve a pre-flown first stage.
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
Oct 31, 2016 - 05:55am PT
|
ANOMALY UPDATES
SHARE ON FACEBOOKSHARE ON GOOGLE+SHARE ON TWITTER
Below are updates regarding the anomaly that occurred in preparation for the AMOS-6 mission:
October 28, 4:00pm EDT
The Accident Investigation Team continues to make progress in examining the anomaly on September 1 that led to the loss of a Falcon 9 and its payload at Launch Complex 40 (LC-40), Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida.
Since the incident, investigators from SpaceX, the FAA, NASA, the US Air Force and industry experts have been working methodically through an extensive fault tree to investigate all plausible causes. As part of this, we have conducted tests at our facility in McGregor, Texas, attempting to replicate as closely as possible the conditions that may have led to the mishap.
The investigation team has made significant progress on the fault tree. Previously, we announced the investigation was focusing on a breach in the cryogenic helium system of the second stage liquid oxygen tank. The root cause of the breach has not yet been confirmed, but attention has continued to narrow to one of the three composite overwrapped pressure vessels (COPVs) inside the LOX tank. Through extensive testing in Texas, SpaceX has shown that it can re-create a COPV failure entirely through helium loading conditions. These conditions are mainly affected by the temperature and pressure of the helium being loaded.
SpaceX’s efforts are now focused on two areas – finding the exact root cause, and developing improved helium loading conditions that allow SpaceX to reliably load Falcon 9. With the advanced state of the investigation, we also plan to resume stage testing in Texas in the coming days, while continuing to focus on completion of the investigation. This is an important milestone on the path to returning to flight.
Pending the results of the investigation, we continue to work towards returning to flight before the end of the year. Our launch sites at Kennedy Space Center, Florida, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, remain on track to be operational in this timeframe.
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Cascade Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
Very interesting
Not sure I agree that using composites inside a LOX tank is a good idea...for several reasons...
You would think they'd have been able to see this one coming a long time ago from post operations inspections
Unless there was something unusual about the way the over-wrap was done on this one
|
|
Slabby D
Trad climber
B'ham WA
|
|
I don't know. The whole Obama blew it up with a laser beam just sounds far more credible.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Probably no one had ever used such a configuration at those temp/densities combos before and they just got lucky with the prior launches using the new helium COPV configuration and loading temp. Sounds like they'll be rolling those configurations, helium temps and loading procedures back to a earlier known good configuration. I'd guess off-hand that will somewhat reduce their current first stage recovery range if they have to burn them longer to compensate for the second stage.
Type IV COPV Cold Gas Operation Challenges
Will be interesting to see if they move on to type V (no liner) COPV's in the future.
|
|
AlanDoak
Trad climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
Scott Manley has an excellent explanation of the forensics so far:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBcoTqhAM_g&t=0s
The working theory is that the densified liquid oxygen permeated through the composite overwrap on the helium tanks, and then froze. Then, as the pressure in the helium tanks was increased further, it caused localized stress that snapped or shifted the carbon fibers, resulting in enough friction/energy to ignite the fibers.
It's amazing to me that they were experimenting with optimizing the fuel loading procedures... on a non-conservative design... on a fully assembled rocket.... with a payload.
SpaceX touts their efficiencies and cost savings over the incumbents; but one reason ULA is so expensive is because everytime they have a mishap, those lessons learned are added to the Process Book.... which gets pretty dang thick. I'd love to see the economics change so that occasional failures are an acceptable cost, but I'm glad JWST isn't flying on an immature platform.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Thanks, I'll take a look at that. What you're saying is correct, though the driver as I understand it was the fact they were loading helium colder than they had previously in order to up its density. Unfortunately that new helium temp was cold enough to solidify the surrounding oxygen some of which had infiltrated the COPV's windings down to the liner. But they're using type IV COPVs given the type V linerless ones weren't in production yet so voids at the windings/liner interface may be unavoidable. I think, though, regardless of the COPV type, they're going to have to go with their previous higher helium temp on loading.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Watched the video and, yeah, he basically lays out the helium temp problem with type IV COPVs. The only thing I might quibble with is his last line about the difference between a rocket flying or blowing-up on the pad. I'd say this issue isn't about flying versus blowing-up so much as flying versus flying with a reduced rate of first stage recoveries. Reuse is at the heart of their value proposition and I suspect that alone will drive some serious innovation around this particular subset of technologies.
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Cascade Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
Thanks Healyje, good comments.
So the fault tree traces back to failure of the pressurized Helium tank. Not too big a surprise there.
But there is a missing piece: what was the source of ignition?
Helium is an inert gas and doesn't combine in chemical reactions, which is part of why it is chosen for this application of pressurizing LOX tanks.
Granted a tank of helium under high pressure could rupture spectacularly like a popped balloon.
However cold helium meeting cold liquid oxygen LOX is not hypergolic. So what was the very sudden and spectacular fire ball at the top of the rocket?
LOX mixed with fuel creates highly energetic fires, which is why we use it in rocket engines and otherwise try to keep it constrained. Liquid oxygen and helium don’t burn or turn into hot plasma by themselves. The LOX would need to combine with fuel and have a source of ignition. However what fuel and what ignition source in this case? They left that part out of the report.
There are lots of available methods for accidentally blowing up rockets. Granted if you spill a whole bunch of LOX around, it will come in contact with something to burn and something to light it off. That's what happened to the Russian Soyuz T-10a. But all of a sudden in a massive fire ball at the relatively isolated upper end of the rocket?? The timing and location of the initial massive explosion is challenging to explain. That's why the initial comments that it seems strange.
I wonder about someone's suggestion that the pressurized helium container constrained in the LOX tank could explode due to the Hohlraum effect while undergoing bombardment from a high intensity x-ray laser. That's just the sort of thing they were trying to research for SDI.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
I thought they were pretty clear about what they thought the ignition source was and you are correct in that no helium was involved as it was still constrained within the tank liner. The ignition was a result of the oxygen solidifying between the liner's exterior wall and the overlaid carbon fiber windings; the expansion of the oxygen pockets produced friction-generated heat between the carbon fiber filaments sufficient to cause ignition. As for 'fuel' for the resulting burn I would say the carbon itself in combination with the CF resins would act as that source. Carbon - even diamonds - will burn just fine in the presence of abundant oxygen. As for the x-ray laser theory, we've covered the sourcing of that already and it's highly unlikely you could focus the beam on an internal component at a distance sufficient to cause ignition without leaving evidence of the heating in other components of the rocket.
NASA: After the [composites] compatibility assessment was performed, a concern became apparent that frictional heating could occur in the LOX tanks.
...
Because the test results confirmed that frictional ignition and burning could occur in either a LOX or GOX environment, more testing should be done.
|
|
Brian in SLC
Social climber
Salt Lake City, UT
|
|
Interesting stuff...haven't really been following this but have spent a gob of time at CCAFS on/near LC-40 where this explosion occurred. Worked the Titan IV program for 18 years...(we were pretty successful off the pad!).
That chatter about sabotage is interesting. I went shooting with a security guard outside Titusville in the swamp at around midnight on one business trip (yeah, weirdly random response to a gun ad in a local paper). He had some interesting stories and theories about some of the flight failures...
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Cascade Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
Yes, carbon is a fine fuel source. Mile long train loads of coal pass through my area daily. And it doesn't take much to produce spectacular results. Look at a carbon arc light for example.
So I don't think composite wrapping is a good idea in a LOX tank, for several reasons. That was not in the plan when I was reviewing SpaceX technical material at NASA JSC C3PO/COTS.
If I still worked in the NASA ARC CFD group, I'd ask someone to calculate the fuel fraction required in a simple chemical reaction producing the initial fireball volume visible in the videos. Intuitively it looks pretty strange.
SpaceX has probably duplicated this part of the event at their test facility in McGregor Texas; and I have tremendous respect for their engineers. Still really wondering about this explanation, but haven't seen their test data. And also understanding the incentive to present acceptable solutions and quickly resume flight status.
Replacing those composite tanks with alternative designs could be an expensive proposition. However they probably already had fall-back hardware options at their big hangers in Hawthorne, California.
Still wondering about both available fuel mass from the composite overwraps vs the size and composition of the fireball; and also the mechanism of friction ignition in a cryogenic tank.
The explosion that blew up the LOX tank in Apollo 13 was ignited by a design error that doubled the supply voltage and overheated internal wiring. And the fuel for the explosion was just the insulation for the wiring of the cryogenic stir mechanism. But that was a much smaller LOX tank and a much smaller explosion. I spent the better part of a week with Apollo 13 EECOM controller Sy Leibergot as my house guest reviewing that one.
Space flight systems are frequently very non-intuitive in strange ways. Light on an event can often be disclosed years later. I think this one will be examined for a long time.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
I think and they speculated that a carbon filament snapping as a result the expansion of the LOX going solid in a pocket against the COPV liner could have provided the necessary frictional heating given its close proximity to other carbon filaments within the fiber matrix.
As to the adequacy of the fuel, once the LOX tank blew the RP-1 tank immediately below it would have followed suit within a second or so and if you look at a photo of the explosion you can see what I'm pretty sure is the heavier RP-1 joining the fray and streaming in large rivulets out the bottom / bottom right of the initial fireball engulfing the first stage.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|