31–37 of 37 posts
This sort of thing does happen in the industry and better during testing than half way up. but I worry that there will now be an increase in the amount of FUD being pushed in the news. It already seems like the amount of muck being thrown at ANYTHING elon musk related has increased over the last few months.
your feelings appear to be right, there was even a discussion about that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15600878
Based on the article it sounds like they have backup capacity that can keep them on track...and the reality is that in space flight these things happen. Better for it to happen on a test stand than in a rocket. I just Wonder if they will try and blame a sniper this time[0]. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/implication-...
> The SpaceX representative explained to the ULA officials on site that it was trying to run down all possible leads in what was a cordial, not accusatory, encounter, according to the industry sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.
I wouldn't exactly call that trying to blame a sniper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Engine failed during qualification testing, not acceptance testing - so it's a new design. If you don't occasionally blow an engine up on the stand you are either not testing hard enough or not pushing the limits hard enough.
What's interesting is that updated info indicates it happened before the engine (which was a block 5 engine, as you say) was ignited, when they do a "LOx drop" test, basically running liquid oxygen through it to test for any leaks: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/an-experimental-spac... It may mean they had a simple FOD (foreign object debris) or contamination issue, not a design problem. Powerful oxidizers l…
For those who don't obsessively follow SpaceX: SpaceX is working on three projects right now. #1- Falcon Heavy, strapping three Falcon 9s together to make a super awesome rocket. #2- The BFR. All over the news lately, going to be a humongous rocket that does New York to Sydney in under an hour, or take humans to the Moon or Mars. And #3, they are working on what's being called "Block 5", the supposedly final upgrade…
That it exploded is oddly a good thing according to friends at JPL. They say that when ever there is a catastrophic failure like this it forces a deep review and root cause analysis which invariably adds additional understanding and depth to the design. Knowing what can cause an engine to blow up, and knowing you have designed around it, is a good thing.
For those who don't obsessively follow SpaceX: SpaceX is working on three projects right now. #1- Falcon Heavy, strapping three Falcon 9s together to make a super awesome rocket. #2- The BFR. All over the news lately, going to be a humongous rocket that does New York to Sydney in under an hour, or take humans to the Moon or Mars. And #3, they are working on what's being called "Block 5", the supposedly final upgrade…
As the article reports it was a Block 5 Merlin (aka the last Merlin upgrade). I don't believe qualification has started yet on Raptor but that would seem to be the logical next engine to qualify after the Block 5s. That it exploded is oddly a good thing according to friends at JPL. They say that when ever there is a catastrophic failure like this it forces a deep review and root cause analysis which invariably adds a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>#2- The BFR. All over the news lately, going to be a humongous rocket that does New York to Sydney in under an hour, or take humans to the Moon or Mars. Does BFR happen to stand for "big fucking rocket"?
Yes. This is from the same CEO who wanted to name his first 3 models of car "S, E, and X" (the 3 was going to be the model E, but renamed due to ford's trademark).
I wish people would take notice... Too often, I see creative/meaningful/evocative product and company names criticised with this sort of I'm-not-complaining-but-other-will-thinking.
as usual when talking about exploding rocket engines, go read Ignition! if you haven't already: https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pd...
"It is, of course, extremely toxic, but that’s the least of the problem. It is hypergolic with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water-with which it reacts explosively.
It can be kept in some of the ordinary structural metals-steel, copper, aluminium, etc.-because of the formation of a thin film of insoluble metal fluoride which protects the bulk of the metal, just as the invisible coat of oxide on aluminium keeps it from burning up in the atmosphere. If, however, this coat is melted or scrubbed off, and has no chance to reform, the operator is confronted with the problem of coping with a metal-fluorine fire. For dealing with this situation, I have always recommended a good pair of running shoes."