magnemoe Posted July 23, 2019 Share Posted July 23, 2019 On 7/23/2019 at 10:42 PM, mikegarrison said: I think you underestimate the amount of energy released if a disk fails. It's usually treated for survivability design purposes as an infinite energy event. Expand No an infinite energy event is an high megaton nuke going off inside your structure. An catastrophic fail of an turbo pump is simply an large split bomb who is much easier than spin stabilized tungsten slugs from an 20mm gun. Apache gunships and A10 close in attack planes are very resistant to this from most relevant angles so they will fail in an dogfight who is outside their scope. More extreme for an falcon 9, you don't care about the outside only the other engines and the piping including the shut of valve. Your trust chamber is part of the armor as its now junk anyway. One benefit is that most of the force and sharpnels will come radial from the turbo pump. if you have one engine this is obviously irrelevant as if it fail mission fail, but if you have lots of engines its very relevant. Not sure how you test this realistic, saw an large vacuum pump at university there some blades had failed, not the ring itself but it was an cascade among the blades so we had an pile of small leafs in the bottom of it. Yes this was smaller and much heavier build so it would contained ring fails but still weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) I think you misunderstand "infinite energy" in this context. It's obviously not physical reality, but an assumption for the purpose of risk mitigation. No practical amount of containment can be assumed to always withstand a disk failure, so you assume it *is* going to be uncontained. I'm not talking about a blade-out here, I'm talking about a whole disk failure. The failure analysis then is focused on whether that one event will doom the vehicle completely or whether it can be survived. An example of this in airplane design was when United Airlines Flight 232 had a disk failure that took out all three supposedly redundant hydraulic systems and led to the semi-controlled crash at Sioux City. It's also a limiting factor for airplane altitudes, because if the engine is in line with the pressurized part of the cabin it must be assumed that a disk failure could lead to rapid depressurization. (This is why most airliners are limited to ceilings just above 40,000 feet. Bizjets that fly higher typically have the engines mounted where a disk failure won't immediately depressurize the cabin.) Anyway, having so many engines together carries a strong risk of fratricide. If they are relying on armor to keep that from happening, that would lead to a very heavy structure, which is typically the opposite of what you want in a flight vehicle. I'm curious how they are addressing this risk in a human-rated vehicle. Edited July 24, 2019 by mikegarrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) See also https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/22187 AC20-128A "Design Considerations for Minimizing Hazards caused by Uncontained Turbine Engine and Auxiliary Power Unit Rotor Failure" It's AC25-20 that says "Failures or a combination of failures which expose the occupants to: (1) cabin altitudes in excess of either 25,000 feet for more than 2 minutes, or (2) cabin altitudes that exceed 40,000 feet for any duration, shall be shown to be extremely improbable." That's why airplanes that fly above 40,000 feet have to show that they can get below 40,000 feet quickly enough to prevent the cabin altitude from ever rising above 40,000 feet. That's a function of the size of the cabin, the amount of air being pumped in, and the assumed size of the hole that is letting the air out. Uncontained engine failures are part of the assumptions that play into the size of the hole you have to assume. Edited July 24, 2019 by mikegarrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 They can give it a name: "Jingle Bells effect". One failed rocket bell makes others follow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 On 7/24/2019 at 5:17 AM, kerbiloid said: They can give it a name: "Jingle Bells effect". One failed rocket bell makes others follow. Expand The bells aren’t the point of failure tho o_o? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 On 7/24/2019 at 5:22 AM, Dale Christopher said: The bells aren’t the point of failure tho o_o? Expand Any bell doesn't jingle itself. Its mechanics does. Here it's a turbopump or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) Reveal hidden contents A bell with a blewn up turbo pump is a relatively quiet one tho since it’s no longer producing a permanent explosion >_< mebe call it a runaway silent night reaction since all the engines will probably shut down from cascading fault detection >=] Edited July 24, 2019 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) Reveal hidden contents On 7/24/2019 at 5:29 AM, Dale Christopher said: since all the engines will probably shut down from cascading fault detection Expand In flight? Great. Edited July 24, 2019 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) Reveal hidden contents Fall out of the sky syndrome? effect >_< Edited July 24, 2019 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) Reveal hidden contents On 7/24/2019 at 5:36 AM, Dale Christopher said: Fall out of the sky syndrome? effect >_< Expand After the "jingle bells" the things "falling out of the sky" are very expectable. Santa does this every year. Edited July 24, 2019 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geonovast Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Having to click on spoilers to see replies is getting pretty tedious, guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 On 7/24/2019 at 1:27 PM, Geonovast said: Having to click on spoilers to see replies is getting pretty tedious, guys. Expand It's to hide stuff that is pretty off topic. On topic: Look at stage 2. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/07/falcon-9-launch-dragon-third-crs-18/ It's for thermal control between LOX and RP-1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Pre-CRS-18 presser: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geonovast Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 I'm confused... won't them changing anything on the F9 affect their human certification? Or are they hoping to get another 7 flights in beforehand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 On 7/24/2019 at 2:27 PM, Geonovast said: I'm confused... won't them changing anything on the F9 affect their human certification? Or are they hoping to get another 7 flights in beforehand? Expand They have their cert flights done, the changes were to the booster. CRS missions are not crew missions, so they can still experiment, and NASA still signs off I bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 They have the launch abort system removed, among a few other more minor changes (likely mass reduction). (I doubt that paint color (or lack of paint) changes certification, anyway) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightside Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 On 7/24/2019 at 2:43 PM, tater said: I doubt that paint color (or lack of paint) changes certification, anyway Expand That thing is looking pretty rough at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying dutchman Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 How about the expected hop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 On 7/24/2019 at 3:57 PM, Flying dutchman said: How about the expected hop? Expand Still looks to be on schedule. Road closure is such that I think it's after the CRS-18 launch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) On 7/24/2019 at 2:43 PM, tater said: They have the launch abort system removed, among a few other more minor changes (likely mass reduction). Expand So...what does this mean for the reusability of crewed Dragon V2s now? Will they not be reused at all, or are they planning to fly them with crew multiple times? I’m confused now Edited July 24, 2019 by RealKerbal3x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 On 7/24/2019 at 8:09 PM, RealKerbal3x said: So...what does this mean for the reusability of crewed Dragon V2s now? Will they not be reused at all, or are they planning to fly them with crew multiple times? I’m confused now Expand The NASA contract pays for a new Crew Dragon each time. They decided to alter Crew Dragon slightly for a dedicated cargo version (small changes, mostly), presumably just to run the production line and bang them out. Cargo versions will be nominally assumed to fly 5 times each, but more if that works out. Used Crew Dragons will be SpaceX property to do with as they please, I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealKerbal3x Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 On 7/24/2019 at 8:24 PM, tater said: The NASA contract pays for a new Crew Dragon each time. They decided to alter Crew Dragon slightly for a dedicated cargo version (small changes, mostly), presumably just to run the production line and bang them out. Cargo versions will be nominally assumed to fly 5 times each, but more if that works out. Used Crew Dragons will be SpaceX property to do with as they please, I suppose. Expand Does the contract allow reusing spacecraft on crewed flights, or does it specifically state that a newly built spacecraft must be used on every flight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.