Great picture! It's a little interesting that Spacex will have a fully man rated fully finished launcher on the pad at the cape in November and Nasa will just be launching the first of many test vehicles in the Ares series around the same time. Spacex's launcher finished and ready in 2010 / Nasa needs until 2016 plus? What's right and wrong with this picture. :roll:
- Status
mr_mark":1dijhvnd said:
The same thing that's wrong with most any US government run thing from the USPS on up - bureaucracy, "not invented here", "make it work anyhow" and "it's the way we've always done it!" run amok.
Not that these are exclusive to government, but in my experience they are more firmly adhered to there and even encouraged.
mr_mark":2ir7nvyn said:
That's not really correct. While some components are man rated, the entire system is not. That's afew years down the road.
Question....I thought both the first and second stages were fully man rated? What part of the Falcon 9 launcher then would not be man rated the interstage? After the first and second stages and the interstage what is left? I wasn't taking about the payload (Dragon). That would be seperate from the launcher.
I'm not 100% sure, but since neither has actually flown yet, I'd suspect any "Man Rating" would be provisional 
Let's go back and look at what was actually said in the July 29 release
"The first stage tank and interstage hardware were subjected to a proof test of 1.1 times the maximum expected operating pressure (MEOP), and a burst pressure proof test of 1.4 MEOP; qualifying both articles with a 1.4 factor of safety. The 1.4 factor of safety designation means that the first stage tank and the interstage can withstand 140 percent the maximum internal pressure expected during flight, and qualifies both pieces of hardware to meet human rating safety requirements, as defined by NASA. The first stage also passed this human rating milestone when subjected to structural bending tests.
The testing regimen included over 150 pressurization cycles, exceeding the number of required life cycles by more than 100. In addition, the first stage and interstage were subjected to stiffness tests, maximum dynamic pressure loading and main engine cutoff conditions; all at expected values, as well as ultimate loads." "All hardware was designed to be man-rated, and these tests confirm that SpaceX is one step closer to flying humans on the Falcon 9/Dragon system."
I don't think that says it is man rated, just that they are making progress toward that goal.
Flying the thing is, I'm sure, part of the man rating process.
Let's go back and look at what was actually said in the July 29 release
"The first stage tank and interstage hardware were subjected to a proof test of 1.1 times the maximum expected operating pressure (MEOP), and a burst pressure proof test of 1.4 MEOP; qualifying both articles with a 1.4 factor of safety. The 1.4 factor of safety designation means that the first stage tank and the interstage can withstand 140 percent the maximum internal pressure expected during flight, and qualifies both pieces of hardware to meet human rating safety requirements, as defined by NASA. The first stage also passed this human rating milestone when subjected to structural bending tests.
The testing regimen included over 150 pressurization cycles, exceeding the number of required life cycles by more than 100. In addition, the first stage and interstage were subjected to stiffness tests, maximum dynamic pressure loading and main engine cutoff conditions; all at expected values, as well as ultimate loads." "All hardware was designed to be man-rated, and these tests confirm that SpaceX is one step closer to flying humans on the Falcon 9/Dragon system."
I don't think that says it is man rated, just that they are making progress toward that goal.
Flying the thing is, I'm sure, part of the man rating process.
Today SpaceX is scheduled to test the first stage of Falcon 9 flight 1 in Texas. Another test next week.
Orlando Sentinel story....
HAWTHORNE, Calif. - A model of Dragon – which will initially be used to haul cargo -- has already been put on a test stand and pushed and pulled and shaken. And it's been pressure- and noise-tested as safe for people.
NASA makes no secret that it needs SpaceX after the shuttle is retired. While humans will initially ride to the station aboard Russian-built Soyuz rockets, about 88,000 pounds of supplies need to be hauled aloft between 2010 and 2015.
>
Even SpaceX supporters in NASA are reluctant for the company to move ahead too fast.
"We always said we want to walk before we run," says Alan Lindenmoyer, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office. "We want to start with the easier objectives of the cargo transportation before we would consider moving on to the more difficult challenge of carrying crew."
But last week, NASA said in a statement that while the agency would still prefer to develop cargo capabilities first, it's prepared "to support whatever direction the new administration and Congress gives to the Agency with regard to this issue."
Internal NASA documents show that although the agency has yet to set human rating requirements for commercial rockets, SpaceX is using 83 of the human-rating and safety specifications that NASA uses on Ares I and Orion for Dragon and Falcon 9.
From the beginning, Dragon and Falcon 9 were designed to be man-rated. In the human version, Dragon's cargo racks would be replaced by seven seats, and -- with Bowersox's help -- monitors and controls.
Much still needs to be done, says Max Vozoff, Dragon project manager. The biggest challenge is creating a launch-escape system that would jettison Dragon off of Falcon 9 in event of a disaster. SpaceX wants to design a liquid-fuel system, like everything else, in house.
But every step SpaceX makes in meeting NASA requirements for the station brings SpaceX closer to taking people, Vozoff says.
"By virtue of that fact that we're going to station, we already have a lot of the human rating requirements forced upon us," he says. "So even the cargo vehicle is going to berth with station. They're going to open the hatch and crew is going to come inside. It is a temporarily habitable module on station. So inasmuch as we have to pass the requirements for that, we are already a significant fraction of the way to a full human-rated vehicle."
And as Bowersox notes, the capsule already has a window.
>
HAWTHORNE, Calif. - A model of Dragon – which will initially be used to haul cargo -- has already been put on a test stand and pushed and pulled and shaken. And it's been pressure- and noise-tested as safe for people.
NASA makes no secret that it needs SpaceX after the shuttle is retired. While humans will initially ride to the station aboard Russian-built Soyuz rockets, about 88,000 pounds of supplies need to be hauled aloft between 2010 and 2015.
>
Even SpaceX supporters in NASA are reluctant for the company to move ahead too fast.
"We always said we want to walk before we run," says Alan Lindenmoyer, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office. "We want to start with the easier objectives of the cargo transportation before we would consider moving on to the more difficult challenge of carrying crew."
But last week, NASA said in a statement that while the agency would still prefer to develop cargo capabilities first, it's prepared "to support whatever direction the new administration and Congress gives to the Agency with regard to this issue."
Internal NASA documents show that although the agency has yet to set human rating requirements for commercial rockets, SpaceX is using 83 of the human-rating and safety specifications that NASA uses on Ares I and Orion for Dragon and Falcon 9.
From the beginning, Dragon and Falcon 9 were designed to be man-rated. In the human version, Dragon's cargo racks would be replaced by seven seats, and -- with Bowersox's help -- monitors and controls.
Much still needs to be done, says Max Vozoff, Dragon project manager. The biggest challenge is creating a launch-escape system that would jettison Dragon off of Falcon 9 in event of a disaster. SpaceX wants to design a liquid-fuel system, like everything else, in house.
But every step SpaceX makes in meeting NASA requirements for the station brings SpaceX closer to taking people, Vozoff says.
"By virtue of that fact that we're going to station, we already have a lot of the human rating requirements forced upon us," he says. "So even the cargo vehicle is going to berth with station. They're going to open the hatch and crew is going to come inside. It is a temporarily habitable module on station. So inasmuch as we have to pass the requirements for that, we are already a significant fraction of the way to a full human-rated vehicle."
And as Bowersox notes, the capsule already has a window.
>
I just posted to M&L that the final test firing of F9-flight 1's first stage has been done and it's being shipped to the Cape.
Well...hiring the former Commander of the 45th should smooth over those communications issues we've been hearing about
ugordon over at NSF just posted images of the F9 Flt 2 second stage and, tada!, the elusive 2nd stage nozzle extension. They're too wide for posting here full size, so I shrunk 'em a bit.
Great pics of falcon 9 second stage flight #2 (COTS flight 1). Just goes to show that this is not a paper rocket as some say. This is actual flight 2 hardware, so flight 1 is sure to be already completed and ready to be assembled at the cape starting this month as scheduled. Looking forward to the launch in February.
Photo Caption: ISS Expedition 23 Astronaut Tracy Caldwell Dyson inside
SpaceX's Dragon Spacecraft with SpaceX's CEO and CTO, Elon Musk
Photo Caption: NASA Astronauts Tracy Caldwell Dyson, Douglas Wheelock,
Megan McArthur and Shannon Walker with SpaceX's CEO and CTO, Elon Musk
And I can't get out of my mind that if you docked a crew Dragon to a cargo Dragon like Dual-Orion you'd have one helluva roomy hab for long duration missions - and potentially a lifeboat. Look at the room in that thing.....
Hey guys do you think that the Falcon 9 + Dragon will be safer than the Ares + Orion?
According to the flight manifest the Falcon 9 will be launched 22 times and the dragon space vehicle will be launched 17 of those times before it is manned. If each flight can be counted as a test than it can be said that the entire system will be tested at least 17 times before it is manned.
As I understand it the Ares + Orion system will only be launched a few times before it is manned.
So which one would you rather launch on? A system that has been tested successful 17 times a system that has been fully tested only few times.
According to the flight manifest the Falcon 9 will be launched 22 times and the dragon space vehicle will be launched 17 of those times before it is manned. If each flight can be counted as a test than it can be said that the entire system will be tested at least 17 times before it is manned.
As I understand it the Ares + Orion system will only be launched a few times before it is manned.
So which one would you rather launch on? A system that has been tested successful 17 times a system that has been fully tested only few times.
DarkenedOne":lm93ztfj said:
System C, Atlas 5, which would have over 90 "test flights" before launch.
Seriously though, the safety numbers for the relative systems are overblown. NASA is claiming a 2400 LOC for Ares (or 1 crew loss event every 600 years), while Atlas get's a HORRIBLE 1:1200 rating (1 LOC every 300 years).
Accelerating a person to MACH 35 at 200 miles altitude is likely never going to be as safe as going to the gas station, but no matter what all manned spacecraft are relatively safe, or at least as safe as a 1920's barn stormer flight.
Will Ares be safer than a Falcon 9+Dragon? Maybe, but if it is that must be balanced with the relative cost per flight (Falcon 9 will be 1/10th the cost), and still have less than a 1% chance of LOC.
SpacexULA":3eu9zesn said:DarkenedOne":3eu9zesn said:
System C, Atlas 5, which would have over 90 "test flights" before launch.
Seriously though, the safety numbers for the relative systems are overblown. NASA is claiming a 2400 LOC for Ares (or 1 crew loss event every 600 years), while Atlas get's a HORRIBLE 1:1200 rating (1 LOC every 300 years).
Accelerating a person to MACH 35 at 200 miles altitude is likely never going to be as safe as going to the gas station, but no matter what all manned spacecraft are relatively safe, or at least as safe as a 1920's barn stormer flight.
Will Ares be safer than a Falcon 9+Dragon? Maybe, but if it is that must be balanced with the relative cost per flight (Falcon 9 will be 1/10th the cost), and still have less than a 1% chance of LOC.
The problem with NASA is they rely to much on these theoretical risk models that have proven to be unreliable. They predicted that the shuttle would be far more reliable than it actually turned out to be. In practice the shuttle had a LOC of only 68. Even the Delta II achieved a higher LOC.
That is the problem with NASA is that simply assume the theoretical risk rating is correct. Honestly it translates to nothing more than "we think it's safe". In reality the only way to know how safe something is to test it. The only way to know that Ares will have a LOC of 2400 is to launch it at least 2400 times.
The benefit of a launch system that is built for both manned and unmanned payloads is that they can be far more thoroughly tested by launching unmanned satellites. This testing gives the rocket more time to be perfected.
Mod Hat On****
Please folks, this thread is to discuss material specific to SpaceX. If you want to discuss other issues such as risk unrelated to SpaceX, start another thread in this forum.
If the discussion continues to be derailed I will split it, and create a new one.
Meteor Wayne
Mod Hat Offf************
Please folks, this thread is to discuss material specific to SpaceX. If you want to discuss other issues such as risk unrelated to SpaceX, start another thread in this forum.
If the discussion continues to be derailed I will split it, and create a new one.
Meteor Wayne
Mod Hat Offf************
SpaceX plans rocket-engine test firing tonight
By Wacotrib.com staff | Thursday, December 17, 2009, 02:02 PM
You might hear a rumble this evening as SpaceX has announced plans to conduct a single-engine test tonight at its facility in McGregor.
According to a release from SpaceX, this is the final test in a series related to the company’s first Falcon 9 launch early next year. The duration of the test takes about an hour, the statement says.
While other tests involved all nine engines and tonight’s firing is just a single engine, SpaceX officials say that today’s cloud cover might amplify the sound of the engine; the company wants to warn residents ahead of time.
It was a cloudy night during a Nov. 22, 2008 engine test when concerned residents called law enforcement and emergency agencies about the rumble and a lit-up sky. SpaceX officials said the clouds amplified the engine noise more than expected.
By Wacotrib.com staff | Thursday, December 17, 2009, 02:02 PM
You might hear a rumble this evening as SpaceX has announced plans to conduct a single-engine test tonight at its facility in McGregor.
According to a release from SpaceX, this is the final test in a series related to the company’s first Falcon 9 launch early next year. The duration of the test takes about an hour, the statement says.
While other tests involved all nine engines and tonight’s firing is just a single engine, SpaceX officials say that today’s cloud cover might amplify the sound of the engine; the company wants to warn residents ahead of time.
It was a cloudy night during a Nov. 22, 2008 engine test when concerned residents called law enforcement and emergency agencies about the rumble and a lit-up sky. SpaceX officials said the clouds amplified the engine noise more than expected.
I can't tell from that pic if they've got that monster second stage nozzle on it. Do you know if there's any word on if they had it mounted for this test?docm":24dn4lj5 said:
Look closely at the platform below the one the tank sits on and you can just make out the nozzle. I'd guess it extends some distance below that level, so yes...I think it could be.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 36
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram