Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

  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. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  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 :P

Edited by RealKerbal3x
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  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 :P

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  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?

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...