-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
As mentioned in an earlier post, the VP was at the Cape this morning to watch the launch. Instead he got a tour of the facilities. Here are a couple twitter posts with pictures of the hanger.
Emre Kelly (@EmreKelly) | Twitter
Emre Kelly (@EmreKelly) | Twitter
Brando
Active Member
Air Force consider saving money? Is Hell freezing over too??
Military, CIA, State Department, Federal Government, Congress, Executive Branch - care to rank in order of corruption?
side note: WSJ keeping a close eye on SpaceX, Boring Company (soon The Brick Store no doubt). who benefits?
WSJ: Musk Called Out for Using SpaceX Resources for Boring Co. - Tesla Motors Club
</sarcasm>
thanks Grendal
Military, CIA, State Department, Federal Government, Congress, Executive Branch - care to rank in order of corruption?
side note: WSJ keeping a close eye on SpaceX, Boring Company (soon The Brick Store no doubt). who benefits?
WSJ: Musk Called Out for Using SpaceX Resources for Boring Co. - Tesla Motors Club
</sarcasm>
thanks Grendal
So true.
Interesting shot, it shows how the 2nd stage vacuum Merlin engine bell fits inside the interstage. That engine bell is huge!
Look at it again. The interstage is attached to the booster stage. The second stage bell just slides all the way in to the interstage normally. Right now, they are separated.
The second stage is on the left of the picture and the black is the interstage attached to the booster stage on the right.
Last edited:
The large bell lets the gasses expand more to boost efficiency. To see the effect of impedance matching in action (sort of similar), check out this video:
Sort of because, if the sea level engine had that large an expansion ratio, the exhaust would be less than atmospheric and cause bad things to happen at the boundary. Flow is like DC whereas sound is like AC.
Sort of because, if the sea level engine had that large an expansion ratio, the exhaust would be less than atmospheric and cause bad things to happen at the boundary. Flow is like DC whereas sound is like AC.
You are right.. thanks.
When the stages separate, the 1st stage has to slide away without hitting the 2nd stage nozzle (bell) and damaging it. Thats got to be a bit tricky, because the separation happens at incredible speed and through pyrotechnics. So I guess there will be a lot of vibration and shaking. Any damage to the nozzle will impact the 2nd stage performance
No pyrotechnics on SpaceX. Helium powered pusher shoves the 2nd stage out via ram in the engine throat. The center part of the tripod structure in the interstage.
Interesting.
Aren't they bolted together on the rim? how do you un-bolt them during MECO? I thought it is a two step process happening in very rapid succession - you first remove whatever holds them together through pyrotechnics and then push/shove them away through other means.
When I visited FH launch, on the Saturn V display I asked one of the NASA guides and all he said was "pyrotechnics".
Three clamps on the edge, I think. There is a great video with footage from the first stage getting towed into Canaveral that goes through all the bits...
Nikxice
Active Member
Bridenstine working on getting favorite Oval Office chair to keep Pence around for the launch.
I’m picturing a group of siblings in SpaceX mission control arguing over who gets to sit next to Gywnne at launch...
The phrase “out of family reading” is an odd one to my ears, though I think I understand it in this context: essentially “too far out of the acceptable range”, I assume. Is the phrase commonly used terminology in aerospace or rockets? I searched the web for it but can’t find a reference in this context, the words in the phrase are too common.
Its very common in A&D. Basically, when you have a lot of data points and especially when there's a fairly tight distribution trending along the data set, a rouge point that doesn't fit with the others is considered out of family (OOF) even if it is technically not out of spec (OOS). In that situation the next step is to investigate to see whether the data point and/or the spec itself are actually valid or not before you make a determination on how to resolve the anomaly, including use as is (UAI).
Intuitively you might think one would revise analytically derived test limits/specs as an empirical data set grows, but in many cases--no doubt like this one--its a much easier conversation with entities like range safety when you can say "we're still within spec so we're going to fly". It would be an absolute nightmare to try and [expediently] convince range safety that an OOS measurement--even if its the very same number as the OOF condition going on right now--is actually ok and that your real issue is the engineering behind those test specs...
The launch is possible tomorrow but the weather is terrible: 20% chance of good weather. So we'll see but don't expect it.
SpaceX is optimistic. Here is the webcast:
SpaceX is optimistic. Here is the webcast:
Last edited:
And scrubbed. They were clear this one was weather related. The domestic problems are solved.
