Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

That’ll be the new Russian hire’s work. Aleksandr Popov.

 

Edit. To be clear, this comment was made purely for the bad pun. I am not casting aspersions on Russian engineering or Russians in general.

Edited by KSK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

This is kind of like saying, "my car looked great right until it crashed into that tree".

I was just thinking of how the texture changed under pressure. Mk3/4 will have those 1 piece rings, faster to build, presumably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One reason planes have traditionally used a lot of rivets and fasteners instead of welds is that welds tend to be a little more variable. It's harder to be sure of exactly how strong they are.

It's also a lot trickier to weld aluminum without messing up the very important heat treatment characteristics.

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With actual water tanks, and a lot of other pressure vessels, it's pretty standard to use a criterion known as "leak before burst". I wonder if SpaceX explicitly considered that? (Of course, they may have, and this was just an unexpected failure mode.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_vessel#Leak_before_burst

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

With actual water tanks, and a lot of other pressure vessels, it's pretty standard to use a criterion known as "leak before burst". I wonder if SpaceX explicitly considered that? (Of course, they may have, and this was just an unexpected failure mode.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_vessel#Leak_before_burst

They did that yesterday, actually, I think. People seem to think they were pressurizing it this time with nitrogen, BTW, no idea if that is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, tater said:

They did that yesterday, actually, I think. People seem to think they were pressurizing it this time with nitrogen, BTW, no idea if that is true.

"Leak before burst" isn't a test, really. It's a design criterion, mostly about crack propagation. If the cracks propagate slowly enough, then the vessel starts to leak and the pressure is relieved. If the crack propagates too quickly, you have events like this where the tank blows apart before enough pressure has leaked out.

Blowout panels and safety valves are much the same idea and serve the same purpose, although they are conceptually more like fuses. Leak before burst is more like choosing a failure mode that is less catastrophic than the alternative failure mode.

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

They were, indeed, pressurizing to max, so likely nitrogen.

I think they found “Max” too...

...guess he was mad...

No offense, but that's like excusing a boiler explosion by saying it was under a lot of pressure. This is not cutting edge materials science. We know how to make pressure vessels that don't blow up when in use.

Edited by jadebenn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, jadebenn said:

No offense, but that's like excusing a boiler explosion by saying it was under a lot of pressure. This is not cutting edge materials science. We know how to make pressure vessels that don't blow up when in use.

I blame Musk since his excessively tight scheduling regime leaves little room for error, meaning every test, every inspection, every review has to be perfect. Humans aren’t. Though we don’t know the cause yet- it often is rooted in human error- and if it’s mechanical- that’s even more reason to panic as that’s a sign of ineptitude or an engineer’s design ignorance. Either way, this does not paint Musk in a good light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I blame Musk since his excessively tight scheduling regime leaves little room for error, meaning every test, every inspection, every review has to be perfect. Humans aren’t. Though we don’t know the cause yet- it often is rooted in human error- and if it’s mechanical- that’s even more reason to panic as that’s a sign of ineptitude or an engineer’s design ignorance. Either way, this does not paint Musk in a good light.

It cost the taxpayer... nothing at all. Delays on someone else's dime are not terribly concerning. You know what would paint Musk in a really bad light? If his goal was to make a Moon rocket, and he spent billions to build a "not quite Moon rocket" that wasn;t really good for anything at all.

 

 

Rumors are flying right now, a couple interesting ones:

First (and hinted at by a Musk tweet), Mk3/4 are substantially different than Mk1/2 in some way (mass is already expected to be substantially less than the 200t+ mk1), and that Mk1 wasn't gonna do the 20km flight. This was even out there this morning before the test apparently.

Second, there is some talk that they were doing a planned test to 1.5-2X the densified prop pressure (~3bar for that, so testing to 4.5 - 6 bar), and a GSE error resulted in it going well past that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tater said:

Second, there is some talk that they were doing a planned test to 1.5-2X the densified prop pressure (~3bar for that, so testing to 4.5 - 6 bar), and a GSE error resulted in it going well past that.

I'm not sure if that would be better or worse than it just suddenly popping a seam.

On one hand, it would mean that their tanks weren't crap. On the other hand, it would suggest they had no alternative safe-guards and therefore had a single point of failure.

Edited by jadebenn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jadebenn said:

On one hand, it would mean that their tanks weren't crap. On the other hand, it would suggest they had no alternative safe-guards and therefore had a single point of failure.

This was always a throw away vehicle. It's a hopper meant to test a specific thing, horizontal fall, and transition back to vertical for landing. My only concern is I wanted to see one of these fly sooner rather than later (like within weeks vs months).

From the NSF article:

Quote

But the impact will likely be limited, with SpaceX also noting that a decision not to fly Mk1 had already been made prior to today’s test. Instead, the company will focus on the improved Mk3 design. Elon Musk noted in September that Mk3 would not only have a very different build process, but would also take significantly less time to construct than Mk1.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely an issue to be addressed, BTW---whatever the failure was, GSE, welds, failed pressure release valve (does it have one?).

Best "silver lining" would be if it was indeed accidentally overpressured beyond 3X, and they got good data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, tater said:

This was always a throw away vehicle. It's a hopper meant to test a specific thing, horizontal fall, and transition back to vertical for landing. My only concern is I wanted to see one of these fly sooner rather than later (like within weeks vs months).

True. But at the same time this failure mode shouldn't be hard to mitigate.

Like I said, a lot depends on the specifics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tater said:

 

Rumors are flying right now, a couple interesting ones:

First (and hinted at by a Musk tweet), Mk3/4 are substantially different than Mk1/2 in some way (mass is already expected to be substantially less than the 200t+ mk1), and that Mk1 wasn't gonna do the 20km flight. This was even out there this morning before the test apparently.

Second, there is some talk that they were doing a planned test to 1.5-2X the densified prop pressure (~3bar for that, so testing to 4.5 - 6 bar), and a GSE error resulted in it going well past that.

Its pretty standard to pressure test with higher than standard pressure. This to make sure that you have margins and that its unlikely that the tank will blow up at an later date, if you just pressurized with 3 bar, you proven that it can take 3 bar for 30 minutes, not 3 days. 

We have seen the new sections, fewer welds for one, it looks like its full lengt panels so just one weld to make an section, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...