SpaceX sticks the landing perfectly!

   #41  

jyoung8607

FoRT
Verified
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
2,584
Reaction score
4,181
Location
Cincinnati, OH
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=25607
Less of an explosion, than a burst followed by conflagration... could be consistent with their high-pressure helium plumbing and COPVs that have been so problematic in the past.

 
   #42  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
31,634
Reaction score
22,597
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
Can't click LIKE, but thanks for posting that, Jason.
 
   #43  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,503
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/china-now-has-a-rocket-that-can-land-taikonauts-on-the-moon/



China now has a rocket that can land taikonauts on the Moon
Meanwhile, America must decide whether it wants socialist or capitalist spaceflight.

ERIC BERGER - NOV 8, 2016 4:30 PM UTC

China's space program hit a huge milestone last week with the launch of its Long March-5 rocket from the new Wenchang Space Launch Center, the nation's fourth launch site. This new heavy-lift booster gives China a rocket that is equaled in power only by the US Delta IV Heavy launch vehicle: about 25 metric tons to low-Earth orbit (LEO).

China deserves credit for creating a space development plan in 1992, called Project 921, and then following through with it. Initially the Chinese space program was derided as highly derivative of Russia's launch program, but, with the new family of Long March rockets that use modern design and propellants such as refined RP-1 kerosene and liquid hydrogen, China must now be regarded as a world-class space power.

At present only two nations can put humans safely into space: Russia and China. Additionally, only two nations can put medium-sized payloads into space, the United States and China. Only one nation can do both. Payload and crewed launch capabilities will allow China to build a modular space station during the next decade that will invite visitors from Europe and elsewhere and will almost certainly outlast NASA's International Space Station.

While China has focused on a space station and has not yet set a definitive timeline for going into deep space, it must be noted that the country now has the capacity to mount a human mission to the Moon, if it so chooses. The Long March-5 rocket is powerful enough to stage an Earth orbit for landings on the Moon and to push a payload of about eight metric tons into a Lunar transfer orbit (LTO).

"By launching and rendezvousing four of those in low Earth orbit, it would be possible for the Chinese to construct a manned lunar mission with no more than that rocket and no more than Apollo technology," former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin told the House Science, Space, and Technology committee in September, 2011. "And I've—I have in fact, in the past, written up how that mission would work from an engineering perspective. So with the Long March-5, the Chinese inherently possessed the capability to return to the Moon should they wish to do so."

Mike Griffin, NASA's administrator under George W. Bush, wanted to remain in that position for Obama. But the president rejected Griffin's Constellation plan—and Griffin himself. If a Republican wins the 2016 election, Griffin could return to NASA or elsewhere to shape policy.

Five years after Griffin made those comments, the Long March-5 rocket has now flown, proving China's capability to design a large rocket around its new YF-100 engines. China has now set its sights on development of the Long March-9, a super-heavy lift rocket in the class of the Apollo program’s Saturn V rocket. This powerful rocket likely remains about 15 years from its debut and is projected to have a payload-to-LEO capacity of at least 130 metric tons and a payload-to-LTO capacity of at least 50 metric tons.

American uncertainty

Chinese strides in space come amidst uncertainty about America's launch efforts. While the US should regain the capability to launch US astronauts in late 2018 or 2019 thanks to NASA's decision to fund SpaceX and Boeing, it's not clear where the space agency will go after that. NASA is deep into building its own super-heavy lift rocket, the Space Launch System, which has about three times the lift capacity as the Long March-5 and should fly late in this decade. But there is no clear plan in place for its use—and even if NASA had announced specific plans, those plans likely will be scrambled by the next president of the United States.

This uncertainty comes as the United States finds itself in a messy transition from a state-run space program to a—potentially—more commercial one. The rise of China's space program offers an interesting contrast between socialism and capitalism in space. From the beginnings of NASA through the early 2000s, America had a largely socialistic approach to space exploration. Ironically, it was the centralized, top-down Apollo program that helped to show the world that the democratic and capitalistic United States was superior to the Soviet Union in outer space, while the Soviet Union's own space race was largely run by independent, competing design bureaus.

But with the rise of SpaceX, Blue Origin, and other US-based rocket companies, the United States now has an opportunity to embrace a much more fully capitalistic approach to spaceflight. Both companies are also developing super-heavy lift rockets, the Falcon Heavy and New Glenn respectively, that will have lift capacity roughly on par with NASA's Space Launch System. Some officials, such as former NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver, have noted the incoherence of a centralized, big government rocket program trying to compete with private companies. For now, though, Congress seems content to stick with the Apollo model of a centralized government program.

Even as lawmakers do so, it is worth considering that the United States could go back to the Moon within the next decade, too, even without waiting for SpaceX or Blue Origin. Just as the Long March-5 is powerful enough to land humans on the Moon, so too is the privately developed Delta IV Heavy rocket, manufactured by United Launch Alliance in Alabama.

It remains unclear whether the United States will retain its centralized approach to space exploration, or even if the vast savings promised by privately developed rocket companies will eventually convince skeptical lawmakers in Congress to abandon a big-government approach to rocket building. While Washington sorts that out, we can rest assured that China will continue to make progress toward its own spaceflight goals.
 
   #45  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
31,634
Reaction score
22,597
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
Nailed another landing! :cool:
 
   #47  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
31,634
Reaction score
22,597
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
And all 10 satellites have been successfully deployed. :thumbs:
 
   #49  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
31,634
Reaction score
22,597
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
ULA is launching an Atlas V right now.....
Meh. Russian rocket engine, expendable booster. The 1960s called and want their technology back. :p
 
   #50  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,503
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
They just cleared the check engine light that they were holding for, and are now ready to light that candle at 8:16 PM Eastern.

Funny that you mentioned the 1960's, since ULA's webcasts seem like they should be in B&W after watching SpaceX's videos.....
 
   #51  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
31,634
Reaction score
22,597
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
Funny that you mentioned the 1960's, since ULA's webcasts seem like they should be in B&W after watching SpaceX's videos.....
That and their control room -- looks like it belongs in the 1990s at best.

Definitely not the 1960s though, because back then, all the engineers were chain-smoking in the control room. :D
 
   #54  

dingle

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
459
Reaction score
361
Location
Canada
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=261477
^ Nice couple of posts ;)
My kind of humor.
 
   #55  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,503
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
^ Nice couple of posts ;)
My kind of humor.

It's all Obama's fault that they had to scrub tonight! It will launch during the Trump administration, unless he closes down NASA/Cape Canaveral as his first act in office.....
 
   #56  

dingle

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
459
Reaction score
361
Location
Canada
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=261477
I think Obama's going to do that at 11:59pm tonight.
 
   #57  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,503
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
Legitimate engineering concern, or contrived BS from all of the other defense contractors (ULA, Boeing, Lockheed) that have lost government business due to SpaceX deflating the launch market price?????


https://bgr.com/2017/02/03/spacex-falcon-9-rocket-problems-report/

Federal agents just discovered a major flaw in SpaceX’s rockets

Mike Wehner @MikeWehner
February 3rd, 2017 at 5:24 PM

When you become one of the leading private space flight companies on the planet you can bet that the government is going to have a whole lot of interest in what you’re up to. SpaceX is one of those companies, and after an investigation from the Government Accountability Office, it appears as though the firm’s pricey Falcon 9 rockets aren’t up to federal standards. In fact, the rockets may have a vulnerability that could lead to catastrophic failure under certain circumstances.

As Wall Street Journal reports, the congressional investigators who dug into SpaceX’s hardware discovered that a crucial part of the rocket is prone to cracking, and they have deemed it too weak. The turbine blades that help pump volatile rocket fuel to the engines in the Falcon 9 are the worrisome component, and while SpaceX insists that the turbopump is built to function even if a crack occurs, such a weakness could potentially hold SpaceX back from carrying out launch duties for NASA and other clients.

According to a comment from a SpaceX spokesperson, the company is taking swift action to correct the problem, and plans to change the design of the component to eliminate the possibility of cracks developing during flight. However, with over a dozen launches on the schedule for SpaceX, it’s unclear how design changes might impact planned missions.

The Government Accountability Office will release its complete report on SpaceX at some point in the coming weeks, and at that point we may get a better idea of just how complicated the problem and potential solutions are.
 
   #58  

Uwe

Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
31,634
Reaction score
22,597
Location
USA
VCDS Serial number
HC100001
Yeah, I'm sure the GAO is qualified to make engineering evaluations on turbo-pump blades...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but engine failures haven't been the source of any less-than-nominal missions, have they?
 
   #59  

vreihen

Verified VCDS User
Verified
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
4,604
Reaction score
5,503
Location
The Land of OCC, NY, USA, Earth
VCDS Serial number
C?ID=31688
Correct me if I'm wrong, but engine failures haven't been the source of any less-than-nominal missions, have they?

With 9 engines on the first stage, they have redundancy built in. I think they have only had one failure in flight so far, back in 2012. The cargo made it to the ISS on the remaining 8 engines, BTW:


I love this quote about the Saturn-V suffering *two* in-flight engine failures in its operational history:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a8173/spacex-engine-failure-the-good-bad-and-ugly-13506860/

SpaceX president Gwynne Shotwell released a statement confirming that the rocket did what it was supposed to do. "Like Saturn V, which experienced engine loss on two flights, the Falcon 9 is designed to handle an engine flameout and still complete its mission," she says. "I believe F9 is the only rocket flying today that, like a modern airliner, is capable of completing a flight successfully even after losing an engine. There was no effect on Dragon or the Space Station resupply mission."

Considering that SpaceX is the only company to ever recover an expended first stage liquid-fueled booster intact to tear down for inspection (not counting the Space Shuttle), I would suspect that their engines have been torn down and evaluated nine ways to Sunday to look for weak components that would prevent their future re-use.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uwe
Top