New Mars Forums

PurduesUSAFguy

Banned

From: Purdue University

Registered: 2004-04-04

Posts: 237

Re: Space-X's baby lost to human error?

Pad Processing Error doomed the Faclon 1 rather then a design flaw. according to that article.

It's funny I figured if they were going to loose a vehicle from anything it would be burn through on the engine bell, I know they were having some problems with their pintel combustor system.

I'm encouraged by this bit of news and the fact that they are pressing forward, especially with the Dragon...I think SpaceX is the AltSpace Canery in the mine shaft, if they survive others will follow, if they don't, well that's that. [/url]

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: Space-X's baby lost to human error?

It is starting to seem that the Falcon is an okay rocket, just the folks that operate the thing are either not very good at it yet or are too few in number to do the job right.

Improving the software overrides will help, but just like - say - early submariners, making rockets that work will take time and dicipline. Something SpaceX will possibly be able to aquire, so Elon's optimism isn't unfounded... yet.

Other AltSpace companies...? What other AltSpace companies? Elon and friends is pretty much it for real orbital spaceflight.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

PurduesUSAFguy

Banned

From: Purdue University

Registered: 2004-04-04

Posts: 237

Re: Space-X's baby lost to human error?

It is starting to seem that the Falcon is an okay rocket, just the folks that operate the thing are either not very good at it yet or are too few in number to do the job right.

Improving the software overrides will help, but just like - say - early submariners, making rockets that work will take time and dicipline. Something SpaceX will possibly be able to aquire, so Elon's optimism isn't unfounded... yet.

Other AltSpace companies...? What other AltSpace companies? Elon and friends is pretty much it for real orbital spaceflight.

Well I was thinking of prehaps T/Space, or maybe Rutan and co once they have Space Ship two flying. My point was that I don't think any altspace group will be able to raise fund unless someone proves it possible first to get ride of the laugh factor. I think that SpaceX is the only shot we have at a non blo-mart launcher for a while.

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: Space-X's baby lost to human error?

No, I really think that Elon probobly does have the only realistic game in town for real orbital flight.

-T/Space forgets little things... like liquid Hydrogen boils, which would cause their Lunar tankers to explode. I wouldn't count on them to produce anything but pretty powerpoint slides.

-Burt and Co may look like rocket men on TV and in Popular Mechanics, but they really aren't. They aren't even matching the X-15 from years back. The performance regiemes are irrelivent, the energies associated with their rocket technologies are two orders of magnetude too low.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

PurduesUSAFguy

Banned

From: Purdue University

Registered: 2004-04-04

Posts: 237

Re: Space-X's baby lost to human error?

No, I really think that Elon probobly does have the only realistic game in town for real orbital flight.

-T/Space forgets little things... like liquid Hydrogen boils, which would cause their Lunar tankers to explode. I wouldn't count on them to produce anything but pretty powerpoint slides.

-Burt and Co may look like rocket men on TV and in Popular Mechanics, but they really aren't. They aren't even matching the X-15 from years back. The performance regiemes are irrelivent, the energies associated with their rocket technologies are two orders of magnetude too low.

Oh, I'm very aware that Space Ship One and two are basically toys. Also the hybrid rockets they are using are so low preforming I don't think they will ever be of any significant value. What I do see Burt doing of value is producing a large dedicated carrier aircraft. If they are overbuilding the White Knight II to the extent that is rumored it could carry a good old fashioned low tech rocket and capsule up and drop it via delayed lanyard release ala AirLaunch. I don't think that any AltSpace company would be able to muster the resources to produce a real TSTO. Yet anyways, or I hope at least.

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: Space-X's baby lost to human error?

I think Burt could probobly build his plane, but I don't know about a rocket nor a capsule. Burt can probobly do scale if he has to, the trouble is technology: namely, he doesn't have any. Maybe he could replace the airliner that Orbital uses for the Pegasus, or an AltSpace equivilent, but thats about it.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

PurduesUSAFguy

Banned

From: Purdue University

Registered: 2004-04-04

Posts: 237

Re: Space-X's baby lost to human error?

I think Burt could probobly build his plane, but I don't know about a rocket nor a capsule. Burt can probobly do scale if he has to, the trouble is technology: namely, he doesn't have any. Maybe he could replace the airliner that Orbital uses for the Pegasus, or an AltSpace equivilent, but thats about it.

That's an interesting idea, Orbital's L-1011 can't last forever. Actually I sort of wondered why orbital didn't push for developing a bigger Pegasus, or for that matter why they havn't tried to improve it's cost effectiveness.

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: Space-X's baby lost to human error?

Because they can't, at least not without basically getting rid of the present design. Pegasus is already using a cluster of small SRMs, and if they add any more I bet it would decrease its already pretty poor performance.

And the thing is expensive. Why I don't know, gut as long as its cheaper then the competitors there isn't any reason for Orbital to try, particularly since it would be hard most likly.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

publiusr

Banned

From: Alabama

Registered: 2005-02-24

Posts: 682

Re: Space-X's baby lost to human error?

Falcon wasn't the only loss from human error. LockMart guys knocked a weathersat on the floor and one of the Arianes went up because a workman left a rag inside some engine plumbing IIRC.

Crap happens.

Grypd

Member

From: Scotland, Europe

Registered: 2004-06-07

Posts: 1,879

Re: Space-X's baby lost to human error?

Falcon 1 failure traced to a broken nut

WASHINGTON — A busted nut, not human error, is to blame for the fuel leak that doomed the Falcon 1 rocket on is maiden flight, according to the findings of a government review board chartered to investigate the March 24 launch failure.

Though originally thought to have been human error it appears that it was not the fuel pipe improperly attached to the pipe fitting but a failure in a $5 Aluminium nut.

The U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the sponsor of the Falcon 1’s inaugural flight, announced  July 18 that the review board concluded a small aluminum nut designed to hold the fuel pipe fitting in place failed due to subsurface corrosion not visible to the naked eye. The resulting kerosene leak caused the main engine to catch fire shortly after the rocket cleared the launch pad, bringing the flight to a premature end.

“The board determined that the only plausible cause of the fire was the failure of an  aluminum B-nut on the fuel pump inlet pressure transducer due to inter-granular corrosion  cracking,” the DARPA release states. “This caused [Refined Petroleum-1] fuel to leak onto the engine and down the outside of the thrust chamber.  Once the engine ignited, the leaking fuel caught fire.  The fire, over time, resulted in a loss of pneumatic pressure, causing the RP-1 and liquid oxygen pre-valves to close, terminating engine thrust 34 seconds after ignition.”

So failed the first launch.

Another possible contributing factor, Musk said, is that there was an adverse reaction—so-called galvanic corrosion—between the aluminum nut and the pipe fitting itself, which was made of stainless steel.

Musk said SpaceX will replace the $5-a-piece aluminum nuts with less-expensive stainless steel nuts to avoid that problem in the future.

“The irony is we are replacing them with a cheaper component to increase reliability,” he said.

---

Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: Space-X's baby lost to human error?

Gah, they mixed aluminum and stainless steel components! Erg... the steel ones will weigh more though heh.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

publiusr

Banned

From: Alabama

Registered: 2005-02-24

Posts: 682

Re: Space-X's baby lost to human error?

There is a reason behind the two-man rule after all.

What was the bad nut's name? Cowing, Tumlinson, Bell or Friedman?