#this was a new vehicle boeing was testing and the safest thing they could have done (and what they did) was send the capsule home remotely

[nominalnebula]

hi, you've just unlocked my hyperfixation topic, let me tell you all the ways you're being stupid about it

[whittlebaggett8]

SpaceX confirmed that its Crew Dragon spaceship for NASA was ‘destroyed’ by a recent test. Here’s what we learned about the explosive failure., Defence Online

caption

A hover take a look at of SpaceX’s Dragon 2 capsule escape thrusters.

source

SpaceX/Flickr (community area)

SpaceX, the rocket business established by Elon Musk, has designed a new spaceship for NASA astronauts identified as Crew Dragon.

The seven-particular person capsule designed its first uncrewed spaceflight in March. It was intended to fly astronauts this summer months.

But the similar Crew Dragon spaceship exploded on April 20 all through a floor examination.

SpaceX was rather silent after the incident. Right now, company government Hans Koenigsmann supplied many major updates.

Go to Defence Online’s homepage for more stories.

Just about two months soon after SpaceX claimed 1 of its spaceships suffered a testing “anomaly” – it exploded – an govt of Elon Musk’s aerospace firm has furnished refreshing facts and insights into the failure.

On April 20, SpaceX set out to exam the escape thrusters of its Crew Dragon capsule, which is intended to fly NASA astronauts to and from orbit. The take a look at was meant to present that the ship’s motor clusters would ignite without incident. SpaceX was then scheduling to connect the capsule to a rocket in get to test the escape system mid-flight. If all of this had long gone effortlessly, that would have confirmed NASA that SpaceX’s launch program is able of propelling astronauts out of a superior-velocity pickle if 1 occurs. But which is not what happened.

Alternatively, a Florida Now photographer captured worrisome photographs of pink smoke clouds climbing from SpaceX’s test stand at Cape Canaveral. A online video later purported to exhibit the Crew Dragon suffering an explosion.

“The original checks finished productively but the ultimate examination resulted in an anomaly on the exam stand,” SpaceX claimed the day of the failure. “Ensuring that our devices fulfill rigorous protection expectations and detecting anomalies like this prior to flight are the primary good reasons why we examination. Our teams are investigating and operating intently with our NASA associates.”

SpaceX, which is usually forthcoming right after its failures, has been unusually quiet about this a person. Even Musk has however to make a public assertion on the make a difference.

On Thursday, nonetheless, Hans Koenigsmann – SpaceX’s vice president for mission assurance – discovered new details about the explosion in the course of a push meeting. (The function was intended to emphasis on the company’s forthcoming cargo resupply mission to the International House Station, which is scheduled to launch 3:11 a.m. EDT on Friday.)

Here’s what we’ve uncovered from Koenigsmann – and other reporting – about the Crew Dragon’s screening failure.

1. The ship’s small escape thrusters fired okay, but anything terrible transpired in advance of its much larger engines ignited

caption

Tremendous Dracos are applied on SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft as section of the vehicle’s start escape method.

source

SpaceX

Koenigsmann reported the Crew Dragon was hooked up to a stand in Cape Canaveral, where SpaceX normally lands its Falcon 9 rocket boosters for later on reuse.

He mentioned that throughout the engine take a look at, the clusters of smaller Draco escape engines fired for about 5 seconds that element was a achievements. But just times ahead of a stick to-up exam in which eight much larger, more impressive Super Draco escape engines would ignite, anything went improper.

“Because this was a floor examination, we have a high amount – a big amount of details – from the motor vehicle and the ground sensors,” Koenigsmann reported. “The first information implies that the anomaly transpired through the activation of the Tremendous Draco technique.”

By “activation,” Koenigsmann clarified: “You pressurize the program, make guaranteed everything is primed in. You open up valves, you near valves.”

2. SpaceX verified the capsule blew up, but critical components survived intact

“The auto was wrecked,” Koenigsmann claimed. But he pointed out that crucial parts survived the blast, together with pressurized tanks the engines call for, called composite overwrapped force vessel (or COPVs). That may perhaps enable SpaceX whittle down the record of probable leads to of the explosion.

Koenigsmann speculated that neither the Tremendous Draco engines nor COPVs are to blame, specified hundreds of prior checks throughout which they’ve worked just fine.

“We never have, currently, a thing in which we could say, ‘Oh, it was most likely this or that.’ We do think – I consider – it was not a Super Draco thruster itself,” he explained. “But which is fairly considerably all I can say at this time. It will get some time for us to go through the information and figure out what it was.”

3. SpaceX is cagey about it, but this movie is almost undoubtedly authentic

A journalist asked Koenigsmann irrespective of whether or not a viral video clip purporting to display the Crew Dragon exploding was genuine. The VP stated he could not remark on it since the clip “was not produced by us.”

Having said that, the Orlando Sentinel reported on Tuesday that it had acquired an inner memo that a NASA contractor emailed to its employees. That memo study:

“As most of you are knowledgeable, SpaceX carried out a exam fire of their crew capsule abort engines at [Cape Canaveral Air Force Station], and they knowledgeable an anomaly […] Subsequently, video of the unsuccessful exam – which was not introduced by SpaceX or NASA – appeared on the world-wide-web.”

The Sentinel explained the memo “confirms the online video is authentic and the capsule did explode.”

4. SpaceX still lacks access to the examination stand the place its capsule exploded

While it has been practically two weeks considering the fact that the explosion, Koenigsmann states SpaceX has still to get its very own up-near appear at the tests stand exactly where it occurred.

When pressed on the issue, he appeared to point out that this delay was for basic safety good reasons, noting that some COPVs are nevertheless intact – and underneath huge force. The simple fact that the engines use a toxic oxidizer identified as dinitrogen tetroxide could possibly also participate in a position in the confined web site entry.

5. A question about saltwater led to an interesting response by SpaceX

caption

SpaceX’s Crew Dragon is retrieved by the company’s recovery ship, Go Searcher, in the Atlantic Ocean, about 200 miles off the east coastline of Florida March 8, 2019, following its return to Earth on the Demo-1 mission.

source

NASA/Cory Huston

The Crew Dragon vehicle that SpaceX was screening has beforehand been sent into place. When it returned, it splashed into the Atlantic Ocean. Saltwater can harm steel and electronics.

So at the press conference, a person reporter asked if any of SpaceX’s hundreds of assessments of the Tremendous Draco engines experienced at any time used a program that was 1st uncovered to saltwater.

“That’s a great dilemma,” Koenigsmann mentioned, seeming to pause and think for a minute. He was unable to deliver an answer.

But he did take note that the Tremendous Draco program was “isolated and hardly ever utilized.”

SpaceX presumably inspected and cleaned all areas of the Crew Dragon wherever salt drinking water acquired in prior to the April 20 check. But a spaceflight specialist who spoke on the condition of anonymity explained to Defence On line “that doesn’t remove the likelihood that [saltwater] was component of the challenge.”

6. Two NASA astronauts who are intended to fly inside the spacecraft termed SpaceX immediately after the blast

caption

NASA astronauts Bob Behnken (remaining) and Doug Hurley (proper) sit within SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spaceship.

source

NASA

A different reporter requested if any person at SpaceX had, pursuing the anomaly, spoken NASA astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley – the two guys who are slated to fly Crew Dragon for the initially time.

In actuality, Koenigsmann claimed, the astronauts known as SpaceX 1st.

“They have been extremely sympathetic and attained out to us,” he said. “I nearly really feel like they’re encouraging us appropriate now, and they are helping us in preserving our determination and not slipping into a hole, mainly.”

7. Even with the failure, SpaceX is hopeful, supplied the situations

It’s never comforting when a protection check finishes in destruction. But Koenigsmann appeared upbeat about the potential clients of rooting out the bring about and relocating ahead.

“That is why we take a look at. If this has to happen, I’d somewhat it transpire on the floor in the advancement system,” he stated. “We will acquire the classes acquired from this, and I’m persuaded this will enable us to ensure that Crew Dragon is one particular of the safest human spaceflight automobiles at any time crafted.”

8. SpaceX may possibly still start its initially astronauts right before 2020

caption

An illustration of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon auto, a spaceship developed to fly NASA astronauts, docking with the International Place Station.

resource

SpaceX

Prior to the failed check, SpaceX had hoped to launch Behnken and Hurley this summer time.

When pressed about agenda adjustments as a end result of the failure, Koenigsmann claimed he hopes “this is a somewhat swift investigation,” but included that he “didn’t want to wholly preclude the existing program.”

Koenigsmann mentioned it is however way too early to explain to what the final result of the joint NASA-SpaceX investigation will be, presented its early stage. The required fix could be a modest or big improve to the Crew Dragon or the way it’s operated.

In the meantime, Boeing may become the 1st to fly NASA astronauts as section of the agency’s Business Crew Plan.

The post SpaceX confirmed that its Crew Dragon spaceship for NASA was ‘destroyed’ by a recent test. Here’s what we learned about the explosive failure., Defence Online appeared first on Defence Online.

from WordPress https://defenceonline.com/2019/05/02/spacex-confirmed-that-its-crew-dragon-spaceship-for-nasa-was-destroyed-by-a-recent-test-heres-what-we-learned-about-the-explosive-failure-defence-online/

[ntrending]

Next month's SpaceX launch could help end America's reliance on Russian rockets

New Post has been published on https://nexcraft.co/next-months-spacex-launch-could-help-end-americas-reliance-on-russian-rockets/

Next month's SpaceX launch could help end America's reliance on Russian rockets

It’s been nearly eight years since American astronauts last launched into space from American soil. When NASA shuttered the Space Shuttle Program in 2011, it did so under the hopes that the private industry would be willing and able to take a huge step forward and partner with the agency to ferry astronauts back and forth between the International Space Station, as well as other potential low Earth orbit destinations.

That vision is finally on the cusp of becoming reality. It just took much longer than we all hoped it would.

On March 2, if the weather proves favorable, SpaceX will finally launch its first spacecraft designed for human spaceflight, the Crew Dragon (a.k.a Dragon 2), into space, as part of its partnership with NASA under the Commercial Crew Program. There won’t be any humans going up on this test flight (called Demo-1). But if everything goes right, it will be the prelude to a crewed test flight (Demo-2) featuring two astronauts in July, finally ending eight years of American reliance on Russia for its human spaceflight needs, and returning the country to independence once again.

“There’s a mixture of feelings,” says Phil McAlister, director of commercial spaceflight development at NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC. “I don’t want to speak for the entire team, but for me personally, I have a combination of excitement and a little bit of anxiousness.”

How did we come to rely on Russian rockets?

Even before formally retiring the Space Shuttle program, NASA was already thinking about potential replacements. In 2010, after ending the Constellation program and its plans to send humans back to the moon, the Obama administration decided to shift the agency’s human spaceflight focus toward developing the Space Launch System and the Orion deep space crew vehicle. This supported the more general goal to send humans to Mars sometime during the 2030s.

And while NASA focused on developing and testing new deep space exploration technologies, it could turn over its needs for getting to low Earth orbit to the private industry, which could ferry astronauts to and from the ISS and find its “space legs” as it developed its own technologies. The agency would simply partner with Russia in the meantime, getting its astronauts to the ISS through Soyuz missions launching from Kazakhstan for a few years. It was a win-win all around.

Thus, in 2014, the Commercial Crew Program was officially born. The agency signed contracts with Boeing and SpaceX, tasking the companies with developing and testing new spacecraft that could basically work as a lower-cost, more efficient, safer replacement of the Space Shuttle. At the time, NASA was already seeing great success with its Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) program, which effectively contracted out ISS cargo shipment needs to SpaceX and Orbital Sciences (later Orbital ATK, and recently bought by Northrop Grumman). It was an extraordinarily successful partnership, and NASA believed it could emulate this same paradigm as a part of its human spaceflight operations as well.

Unfortunately, CCP has been plagued with delays from virtually the outset. The original goal was to have SpaceX and Boeing strike for their first crewed missions by 2017. Two years later, both companies have yet to launch even an empty spacecraft into orbit. SpaceX’s delay of Demo-1 into next month seems more like business as usual at this point. (Boeing is aiming for its first uncrewed flight test no earlier than April, and its first crewed flight to take place in the late summer.)

Meanwhile, the U.S. is heading into its eighth year of procuring seats aboard Soyuz launches for getting its astronauts to the space station—and that has been far from a peaceful, reliable process. Amidst deteriorating relations between Washington and Moscow, NASA and Roscosmos (Russia’s space agency) have done their best to keep ISS operations running smoothly. But Russia’s decreased involvement with the ISS has limited the number of seats available to the U.S., at increased prices that have cost NASA billions of dollars. SpaceX and Boeing don’t shoulder all the blame (Congress is arguably most at fault for inadequately funding the CCP early on), but they may already be feeling the effects of those frustrations: according to SpaceNews, schedule certainty was a factor for NASA choosing to go with United Launch Alliance instead of SpaceX for the upcoming Lucy mission to the Trojan asteroids near Jupiter, launching in October 2021. (SpaceX has chosen to protest the contract, arguing it could launch Lucy for less money.)

The bottom line is, American access to the ISS has been relegated to a precarious and costly situation. NASA’s access to the space station through Russia effectively ends in September, so any more delays could mean the U.S. loses access to the ISS entirely for a while.

What’s taking so long?

McAlister counters that while the perception from the outside is a program riddled with delays and waiting, the mood behind the scenes is genial and relatively calm. “When you look historically at how long human spaceflight hardware takes to be developed, [CCP] has been a fairly quick development cycle,” he says. “I know we’ve slipped the schedule a couple of times, so people may think, ‘oh they’ve taken so long,’ but… we signed the contracts in September 2014. Four years later, to be talking about having our first test flights, really isn’t that long in the grand scheme things.”

It’s true: While the Crew Dragon is ostensibly an upgraded version of the original Dragon vehicle, it needs to be ready to house people for spaceflight—and that takes time. Companies must design comfortable and safe seating, an escape system, windows, dashboards for the crew to use to manage controls, and much more.

And from NASA’s perspective, the delays are not all that unexpected. “Generally,” says McAlister, “in the aerospace industry, we tend to like to establish aggressive schedules upfront.” This provides an incentive for the teams to move efficiently and leaves ample time for adjustments when obstacles and challenges come up. This mindset also explains why NASA frequently pushes back its own deadlines. The culture McAlister and his team have tried to instill is inspired by the late UCLA basketball coach John Wooden: “Be quick—but don’t hurry.”

Not even this year—the year of the test flights—is immune to schedule changes. “This next year is probably going to be one of the hardest years we’ve ever had,” says McAlister. “We’re going to have issues we need to address. Every launch has risks associated with their schedules.”

Has it been worth it?

That depends on how you look at it. There’s no question both the Crew Dragon and the Starliner will act as cost-efficient flight systems in the long run. The average Space Shuttle launch cost about $450 million. Neither new spacecraft should cost that much—SpaceX in particular, thanks to its masterful work in proving the viability of reusable rockets. Every launch of the Falcon 9 rocket (which will take Crew Dragon into space) costs only about $62 million. Astronaut launches will presumably not cost much more.

In addition, both spacecraft will feature much better safety systems than were available on the Space Shuttle and other previous spaceflight systems. Both utilize what’s called a “pusher escape system” for launch abort sequences. In this scenario, during an anomaly that requires an abort, the system pushes the spacecraft away from the high-powered engines instead of pulling them, so you still have a propulsion system for maneuvering and altitude adjustment as the crew capsule returns to Earth.

Lastly, the CCP’s approach means NASA doesn’t have to rely on a single launch provider for its needs. “I think that has been a huge benefit for NASA,” says McAlister. It’s important for the government to not be dependent on any single system [alone].”

The recent mid-flight abort of the Soyuz MS-10 launch to the ISS underscores this point. The Russian Soyuz spaceflight system is one of the safest crew vehicles around, having been used for decades on hundreds of successful launches in orbit. “Even with all that flight heritage, it had a failure,” says McAlister. “When you’re depending on a single supplier… it really increases risks.” Multiple suppliers mean multiple options when one company runs into a hiccup.

Everyone is anxiously waiting for the U.S. to return to spaceflight independence, but the CCP’s success could extend beyond just ISS missions. If Demo-1 goes smoothly and the rest of the year’s flights manage to send astronauts into space and back, the agency might very well start asking whether it can expand these types of partnerships to other areas of spaceflight as well, and leverage these technologies for other capabilities. NASA’s already developing its own spaceflight systems for future travel to the moon, Mars, and potentially elsewhere, but it’s certainly not outlandish to think a future version of the Crew Dragon—one designed for deep space missions—could play a role in those plans. For now, let’s just hope next month’s launch goes off without a hitch.

Written By Neel Patel