NASA attempts to geld SpaceX? Ironic indeed.
Discussion
MartG said:
Not at all
It is the way it is being reported, as if SpaceX were deliberately using substandard materials and only fixing the issue because NASA have found them out and are forcing them to address the issue.
During its long history NASA has had many failures, but hasn't generally blamed its contractors in such a public way, especially when the issue has never caused an in-flight problem.
Sadly there seems to be a deeply entrenched anti-SpaceX attitude within certain parts of the space industry
https://youtu.be/8P8UKBAOfGoIt is the way it is being reported, as if SpaceX were deliberately using substandard materials and only fixing the issue because NASA have found them out and are forcing them to address the issue.
During its long history NASA has had many failures, but hasn't generally blamed its contractors in such a public way, especially when the issue has never caused an in-flight problem.
Sadly there seems to be a deeply entrenched anti-SpaceX attitude within certain parts of the space industry
Sylvaforever said:
Last time it was publicised they had very many Merlin engines sitting on stands and in storage, that's a big hit $$$$ wise to rework especially considering their operational record.
There has been 29 (?) successful falcon 9 launches each with 10 merlin engines, and afik only 1 engine has failed. Prtty good practical rates there.NASA are only worried about manned f9 flights anyhow, none of which are scheduled.
SpaceX are reworking the f9 at block 5 with new engine designs for reusability anyhow.
Not sure how bothered they would be with a few old school engine design examples sitting around where they can use them for disposable sat launches.
RobDickinson said:
Not sure how bothered they would be with a few old school engine design examples sitting around where they can use them for disposable sat launches.
True - though the way this information has been publisised could get some of SpaceX's commercial customers worried....almost like it was intended to do that to get them to swap to other launch services like ULAMartG said:
True - though the way this information has been publisised could get some of SpaceX's commercial customers worried....almost like it was intended to do that to get them to swap to other launch services like ULA
ULA is already a safer bet but is a lot more money. The one thing SpaceX dont lack is willing customers. They have years of launches queued up.
http://www.spacex.com/missions
RobDickinson said:
There has been 29 (?) successful falcon 9 launches each with 10 merlin engines, and afik only 1 engine has failed. Prtty good practical rates there.
NASA are only worried about manned f9 flights anyhow, none of which are scheduled.
SpaceX are reworking the f9 at block 5 with new engine designs for reusability anyhow.
Not sure how bothered they would be with a few old school engine design examples sitting around where they can use them for disposable sat launches.
The Falcon's main problem area seems to centre around the helium storage tank construction which has caused two explosions.NASA are only worried about manned f9 flights anyhow, none of which are scheduled.
SpaceX are reworking the f9 at block 5 with new engine designs for reusability anyhow.
Not sure how bothered they would be with a few old school engine design examples sitting around where they can use them for disposable sat launches.
NASA are obviously concerned (naturally) that these issues be resolved before humans start sitting on top of the Falcon booster.
They are also concerned that the Falcon is more effective when fuel and oxidiser is pumped into the rocket right up to the last few minutes before launch. SpaceX has proposed that they will be using this technique for manned Dragon flights too. Again, this goes against NASA's (and everybody else's for that matter) practice of ensuring that the rocket is fueled when there are no personnel in the vicinity of the rocket. Again, if Falcon are obliged to use this technique to make manned Dragon flights viable, NASA wants to make sure that they are on top of all the safety implications.
The explosion on September 1, which happened during fuelling, was not confidence inspiring.
Einion Yrth said:
He specified "alighting" which is "getting off". With shuttle you really couldn't, loss of vehicle meant loss of crew, as we saw, twice.
I was thinking of alighting as "approach and landing". But, as I said, I was probably being dumb.As far as escape from the Shuttle was concerned, NASA and Rockwell looked at a number of possible emergency and abort procedures (ejection capsule, individual ejection seats, emergency escape rockets fitted to the Orbiter etc ) but in the end came to the conclusion that -
a) they couldn't be fitted without making the Orbiter too heavy and thereby ruining its raison d'etre as a space craft
b) none of the escape systems would have worked anyway
So, they bit the bullet and designed it as it was. Rest assured they will never do that again - which is the reason why Orion is not a winged orbiter and has a bona fide abort system..
Sylvaforever said:
It's staring you, quite literally, in the face.
Landing gear (OK) protruding through heatshield.
Like on the X-37 and any other spaceplane we will ever build. I don't see a problem as long as it's designed correctly.Landing gear (OK) protruding through heatshield.
Over the 135 flights of the Shuttle, there were only one or two incidents where there was a problem with heat leakage through the undercarriage doors. And on no mission was it close to destroying the vehicle. I think that is a non-issue. The Shuttle had many really dangerous aspects to its configuration. The undercarriage doors didn't rate terribly high on the danger scale in comparison to other flaws.
The USAF's MOL/Gemini design also had an opening hatch/door built into the ablative heatshield. The only flight in the MOL programme was specifically a test of this heatshield design - and it worked fine.
‘What we do, and what ESA is doing, in some cases are requirements that would be virtually impossible for a commercial mission to meet,’ she said, according to Space News. ‘We have to figure out how to work closely, how to move forward in a collaborative posture so we don’t have another red Roadster up there in orbit.
Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/28/nasa-slams-elon-musk...
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/
http://uk.businessinsider.com/nasa-planetary-prote...
For Toasty..
http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/28/nasa-slams-elon-musk...
Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/28/nasa-slams-elon-musk...
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/
http://uk.businessinsider.com/nasa-planetary-prote...
For Toasty..
http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/28/nasa-slams-elon-musk...
Presumably she'd be OK with a lump of concrete being launched by FH instead - sadly NASA has long ago forgotten how to connect with the public in ways which really catch the imagination
Over the last 50 years NASA has produced vast swathes of documents and pretty pictures about manned missions to Mars which have turned out to be nothing more than very expensive science fiction. Now that a private company looks like it may succeed in less than 20 years from startup while they continue to piss away $billions on the political pork barrel of SLS must really grate :/
And as for 'dumping trash' in the solar system...there are literally billions and billions of bits of metallic rock whizzing around out there - a few spacecraft ( or cars ) aren't going to make any difference at all in the grand scheme of things.
Over the last 50 years NASA has produced vast swathes of documents and pretty pictures about manned missions to Mars which have turned out to be nothing more than very expensive science fiction. Now that a private company looks like it may succeed in less than 20 years from startup while they continue to piss away $billions on the political pork barrel of SLS must really grate :/
And as for 'dumping trash' in the solar system...there are literally billions and billions of bits of metallic rock whizzing around out there - a few spacecraft ( or cars ) aren't going to make any difference at all in the grand scheme of things.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/in-respons...
"The president’s fiscal year 2019 budget for the space agency seeks to realign the space technology program by folding it into NASA’s “Exploration” program, which is managing development of deep space hardware Congress has directed the space agency to build—the Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft, and ground systems at Kennedy Space Center."
"Braun said he is principally concerned that, when research activities are combined with hardware-development programs, it never works out in favor of research into advanced technologies. The large development programs have huge, immediate needs for funding. “All one of those long-term programs do is need to burp, and it eats up the seed corn of the technology program,” Braun said."
NASA are a joke really and such a waste of cash.
"The president’s fiscal year 2019 budget for the space agency seeks to realign the space technology program by folding it into NASA’s “Exploration” program, which is managing development of deep space hardware Congress has directed the space agency to build—the Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft, and ground systems at Kennedy Space Center."
"Braun said he is principally concerned that, when research activities are combined with hardware-development programs, it never works out in favor of research into advanced technologies. The large development programs have huge, immediate needs for funding. “All one of those long-term programs do is need to burp, and it eats up the seed corn of the technology program,” Braun said."
NASA are a joke really and such a waste of cash.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff