SeJoWa wrote:especially with the satellite also gone
That's a hard pill to swallow.
Furthermore the launch pad is probably damaged, making launches for now impossible.
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
SeJoWa wrote:especially with the satellite also gone
bmacleod wrote:Yet another expensive SpaceX accident.
Any idea of the costs involved (rocket + payload)?
Hopefully Facebook can afford cost to replace destroyed satellite...
moo wrote:Facebook don't own the satellite, they were merely leasing Ka-band spot beams from Spacecom, the owners and operators. The payload is insured, so thats something - the payload was around $200Million, and the Falcon 9 FT would have been around $60Million.
SeJoWa wrote:Wow.
Youtube video by USLaunchReport: SpaceX - Static Fire Anomaly - AMOS-6 - 09-01-2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BgJEXQkjNQ
Oroka wrote:But as Elon likes to say... "Rockets are tricky..."
Francoflier wrote:It had so far seemed that Musk and SpaceX were running the race for affordable and reusable space launchers on their own.
Not that New Shepard wasn't cool stuff, but it wasn't exactly the same league. But Bezos and Blue Origin have now thrown down the gauntlet when they gave more details about their 'New Glenn' reusable rocket.
It will be massive, much more so than even Falcon heavy...
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37342181
Can't wait.
KarelXWB wrote:SpaceX hopes to fly again by November, delays Falcon Heavy:
https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/13/spa ... con-heavy/
The delay should not come as a surprise.
KarelXWB wrote:SpaceX hopes to fly again by November, delays Falcon Heavy:
https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/13/spa ... con-heavy/
The delay should not come as a surprise.
moo wrote:Thats odd, since they had delayed the Falcon Heavy to 2017 a few weeks before this incident...
Me thinks theres some PR arse covering going on here.
iamlucky13 wrote:moo wrote:Thats odd, since they had delayed the Falcon Heavy to 2017 a few weeks before this incident...
Me thinks theres some PR arse covering going on here.
Not needed. The Falcon Heavy first flight has been delayed numerous times, and they've never had a need to make excuses for those slides, as there is no deadline. The short list of customers for that variant do not yet have dates agreed to, and I expect will not until after the Falcon Heavy demo flight.
For Falcon 9, however, there are customers waiting. Similarly, SpaceX doesn't get paid until they're launched - SpaceX may be funded by incredibly accommodating investors, but they don't have unlimited resources and need to keep cash flow in mind. Falcon Heavy's test flight has to be fit in around those launches.
iamlucky13 wrote:Because of the space needed in the horizontal integration facility and labor to complete some of the paying customer launches they're committed to. Those customers have spent large amounts of money on their satellites. Those satellites don't start generating revenue until they're launched. They will only have limited tolerance for SpaceX costing them money in order to do a test supporting SpaceX's future profit.
moo wrote:That doesn't answer my point, and it seems you don't even understand it.
Gwynne Shotwell said in the press conference that the Falcon Heavy would be pushed back from its 2016 slot to 2017 as a result of the issues after the incident.
It was already public knowledge that the Falcon Heavy was being pushed back into 2017 *before* the incident. See this very thread for timescales - there is a post from myself on the 22nd of August 2016 in this very thread where I say the FH had already been pushed back into 2017 (and I was going on public info that had been around for a while).
Why are they trying to use the incident as cover for something that was publicly known before the incident...?
At this stage of the investigation, preliminary review of the data and debris suggests that a large breach in the cryogenic helium system of the second stage liquid oxygen tank took place. All plausible causes are being tracked in an extensive fault tree and carefully investigated. Through the fault tree and data review process, we have exonerated any connection with last year’s CRS-7 mishap.
Production Raptor goal is specific impulse of 382 seconds and thrust of 3 MN (~310 metric tons) at 300 bar.
Chamber pressure is almost 3X Merlin, so engine is about the same size for a given area ratio.
iamlucky13 wrote:Whatever it was, the initial event was energetic - it went from everything looking ordinary to the 2nd stage being obscured by the explosion in a single video frame.
I think we've gotten to the bottom of the problem. Really surprising problem that's never been encountered before in the history of rocketry, and it basically involves a combination of liquid helium, advanced carbon fiber composites and solid oxygen. Oxygen so cold that it actually enters solid phase. So it's never happened before in history…So this was the toughest puzzle solved that we've ever had to solve. it looks like we're going to be back to launching around mid-december.
KarelXWB wrote:SpaceX likely found the problem that blew up a Falcon 9 rocket in September:I think we've gotten to the bottom of the problem. Really surprising problem that's never been encountered before in the history of rocketry, and it basically involves a combination of liquid helium, advanced carbon fiber composites and solid oxygen. Oxygen so cold that it actually enters solid phase. So it's never happened before in history…So this was the toughest puzzle solved that we've ever had to solve. it looks like we're going to be back to launching around mid-december.
http://www.ibtimes.com/spacex-falcon-9- ... ay-2442212
WIederling wrote:If you play around with Liquid Helium other cryo fluids in the vicinity going solid is not far off.
WIederling wrote:KarelXWB wrote:SpaceX likely found the problem that blew up a Falcon 9 rocket in September:I think we've gotten to the bottom of the problem. Really surprising problem that's never been encountered before in the history of rocketry, and it basically involves a combination of liquid helium, advanced carbon fiber composites and solid oxygen. Oxygen so cold that it actually enters solid phase. So it's never happened before in history…So this was the toughest puzzle solved that we've ever had to solve. it looks like we're going to be back to launching around mid-december.
http://www.ibtimes.com/spacex-falcon-9- ... ay-2442212
If you play around with Liquid Helium other cryo fluids in the vicinity going solid is not far off.
Especially when another change is going to supercooled liquid Oxygen.
So it's not an "unknonw unknown" but a known unknown. They just did not care all that much.
DfwRevolution wrote:Clearly there is plenty of unknown in how all three of those interact together.
WIederling wrote:DfwRevolution wrote:Clearly there is plenty of unknown in how all three of those interact together.
Right. and you go over the permutations in a controlled environment that are relevant
_before_ you load the whole shebang on a launch ramp.
( actually the same laxness that Boeing shew on the 787 batterie issue.)
WIederling wrote:"You can only test for old science."
No Comprendo.
( actually that is the basic objective of research.)
WIederling wrote:DfwRevolution wrote:Clearly there is plenty of unknown in how all three of those interact together.
Right. and you go over the permutations in a controlled environment that are relevant
_before_ you load the whole shebang on a launch ramp.
( actually the same laxness that Boeing shew on the 787 batterie issue.)
DfwRevolution wrote:Note: I'm just stating this for the benefit of the general community. We know you never make mistakes. It's easy to be the critic, hard to be the artist.
Falcon Heavy interstage being prepped at the rocket factory. When FH flies next year, it will be the most powerful operational rocket in the world by a factor of two.
parapente wrote:I understand the theory that chilling or indeed super chilling gasses down to a liquid state allows more propellant to be loaded into the rocket.This obviously allows it to lift more ( of anything) into orbit.But when this process is taken to such extremes that the gasses actually move a solid state then surely the 'risk reward' ratio changes.Is it necessary to take it to such extremes - particularly as these rockets are to be reused? Why not just chill it to a liquid state but no more?