[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 hours ago

What's the 'unique selling point' of this compared to existing Earth re-entry systems? The parafoil giving 100 metre landing accuracy?

Were existing heavy duty systems all designed to ultimately be suitable for humans? And this? Could some future version be used for humans? If not, does ditching that criterion allow for massive efficiency improvements?

P.S. I thought they had a typo, but no. (Well, not really.) You learn something new every day.

[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I like SpaceX's Sarah Walker, despite (or partly because of?) the fact that she tends not to answer questions from mere mortals (non-SpaceX / non-NASA personnel).

For example, at the Post-Launch News Conference, there was a question about pulsive splashdown (although that term was not used).

She seemed to imply that the capability would have been available for Crew-7 if it wasn't for a problem with one of the GPS sensors. (Was this problem known about well in advance of undocking? Would that be why they didn't announce the new capability at the time?)

She spent most of the time confirming the point I made in my first comment on this post, about taking into account any extra risks that this capability might add, and she said that it had taken "years".

She didn't answer whether it's available if the parachutes fail during a launch abort, nor tell us any of the (non-NASA) missions it has been active for (of which Gerst had said there were "several").

Here's the question: https://www.youtube.com/live/wwhfph1vGdE?t=32m30s (at 32:30)

[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago

When composing the title of this post I nearly called this technique 'Propulsive Splashdown', but I didn't remember ever hearing that term used before. (Stitch didn't call it that, did he?)

Later I heard Stephen Clark use that term in his question. And yesterday that term was used during the launch stream. Nail and Cardman spent a minute discussing the capability: https://www.youtube.com/live/SKXtysRx0b4?t=3h29m8s (from 3:29:08)

Apparently they often abbreviate it to "prop splash".

[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 days ago

Not really. There's a hover test vid uploaded in 2016 but they cheated. (It's held up by a rope!)

Or you could play the first 17 seconds of the pad abort test in reverse ...

[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

At 52:05, Stephen Clark asked about this. The start of Gerst's answer is:

We've actually flown it on several other dragon flights before this. This is the first time it flies on a NASA mission.

So, perhaps Inspiration 4? Presumably Polaris Dawn? And I guess the Axiom missions are being counted as non-NASA in this context, so some of those?

Before doing something like this I think you should ensure that it reduces the overall risk to the crew. So you'd need to have an estimate of how likely it is that all the parachutes fail, and how likely it is that the SuperDracos could save lives in that situation, but also an estimate of how likely this capability is to go wrong. For example, could there be a bug in the software or in some sensor(s), that causes the SuperDracos to fire when they weren't needed? Would the SuperDracos otherwise be in an inactive state during re-entry, and if so, what are the risks of having them active? Etc..

Those 2 sentences from Gerstenmaier suggest to me that SpaceX had already decided that, on balance, this capability should be enabled. Whereas NASA have only just reached that conclusion.

27

Steve Stich states at today's Crew-9 news conference that Dragon has a new contingency capability if all 4 parachutes fail; the SuperDracos will ignite prior to splashdown.

The Crew-8 return to Earth will also have this capability.

(He said this about 20 minutes after the start of the stream.)

[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 month ago

Departure will be televised.

(I looked it up because I was vaguely wondering whether broadcasting this would be too embarrassing!)

[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago

Aren’t there several realistic scenarios ...

Scenario 1

Emergency on board ISS. 1) One aspect of the emergency (e.g. noxious air) has incapacitated many of the crew, including all the ones trained to operate Starliner. 2) Another aspect of the problem (e.g. electrical faults that are expected to lead to fire) leaves no doubt that evacuation is essential.

Those ISS crew who managed to don emergency breathing apparatus quickly enough now move the incapacitated Starliner crew to their seats, strap them in and exit Starliner (closing the hatches on their way out), before proceeding to their own vehicle(s).

Scenario 2

Serious MMOD strike upon a docked vehicle, causing damage that makes it very unlikely to be safe for its crew to return in, and also at significant risk of posing a danger to the ISS.

Wouldn't the least bad option be to command an uncrewed undocking and hope for the best?

Scenario 3

During a flight test, a spacecraft is able to dock with ISS, but only after encountering significant problems. The first job of engineers is to consider whether it is sufficiently safe for the crew to return to Earth in, in the event of an emergency. Their decision is either 'no', or 'barely'.

An alternative provider of crewed LEO access services, known for its proficiency and speed of operations, announces that they will be able ready to send a replacement vehicle by the time of a suitable launch opportunity in 4 days' time.

There are no spare docking ports.

9

A Youtuber called Ellie in Space claims that a NASA source sent her the following message. It was in response to a question about when NASA knew that the Boe-CFT mission's Starliner vehicle would not be able to undock and return to Earth autonomously without being reconfigured.

So if you want to know when??? Well always, but it wasn't a reasonable consideration to retain the unmanned Starliner capsule software to work in the manned version of the capsule as a contingency. Would you call that a mistake?? Maybe, but let's think about the need to really ever plan to send folks up to space and leave them there with no way to fly home... they would always chose to risk the ride vs having no way home.

No one really considered this very unique and dynamic situation would happen.

Background

I believe this issue was first brought to light by Eric Berger.

Regardless, sources described the process to update the software on Starliner as "non-trivial" and "significant," and that it could take up to four weeks. This is what is driving the delay to launch Crew 9 later next month.

A couple of days later, NASA held a press teleconference in which they emphasized that what was needed was merely a "data load", not a software change. But they indicated timelines that do seem consistent with the "up to four weeks" claim by Berger's source.

My questions

Aren't there several realistic scenarios where you'd want to undock a crew vehicle, without its crew (or at least without them being in a fit state to operate the vehicle), in less than 4 weeeks?

Can Crew Dragon do it? Soyuz?

19
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by ptfrd@sh.itjust.works to c/spacex@sh.itjust.works

Relevant portion of the video is 18:06 - 22:22.

Key quote: "We'll move a Dragon recovery vessel to the Pacific some time next year, and we'll use SpaceX facilities in the Port of Long Beach for initial post-flight processing".

Although this was revealed in a Crew-9 briefing, it doesn't actually apply to Crew-9.

The announcement has just now been posted to the SpaceX website.

Key excerpts:

During Dragon’s first 21 missions, the trunk remained attached to the vehicle’s pressurized section until after the deorbit burn was completed. Shortly before the spacecraft began reentering the atmosphere, the trunk was jettisoned to ensure it safely splashed down in unpopulated areas in the Pacific Ocean.

After seven years of successful recovery operations on the U.S. West Coast, Dragon recovery operations moved to the East Coast in 2019, enabling teams to unpack and deliver critical cargo to NASA teams in Florida more efficiently and transport crews more quickly to Kennedy Space Center. Additionally, the proximity of the new splashdown locations to SpaceX’s Dragon processing facility at Cape Canaveral Space Force Base in Florida allowed SpaceX teams to recover and refurbish Dragon spacecraft at a faster rate [...]

This shift required SpaceX to develop what has become our current Dragon recovery operations, first implemented during the Demo-1 and CRS-21 missions. Today, Dragon’s trunk is jettisoned prior to the vehicle’s deorbit burn while still in orbit, passively reentering and breaking up in the Earth’s atmosphere in the days to months that follow. [...]

When developing Dragon’s current reentry operations, SpaceX and NASA engineering teams used industry-standard models to understand the trunk’s breakup characteristics. These models predicted that the trunk would fully burn up due to the high temperatures created by air resistance during high-speed reentries into Earth’s atmosphere, leaving no debris. The results of these models was a determining factor in our decision to passively deorbit the trunk and enable Dragon splashdowns off the coast of Florida.

In 2022, however, trunk debris from NASA’s Crew-1 mission to the International Space Station was discovered in Australia, indicating the industry models were not fully accurate with regards to large, composite structures such as Dragon’s trunk. [...]

After careful review and consideration of all potential solutions – coupled with the new knowledge about the standard industry models and that Dragon trunks do not fully burn-up during reentry – SpaceX teams concluded the most effective path forward is to return to West Coast recovery operations.

To accomplish this, SpaceX will implement a software change that will have Dragon execute its deorbit burn before jettisoning the trunk, similar to our first 21 Dragon recoveries. Moving trunk separation after the deorbit burn places the trunk on a known reentry trajectory, with the trunk safely splashing down uprange of the Dragon spacecraft off the coast of California.

27
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by ptfrd@sh.itjust.works to c/spacex@sh.itjust.works

That's 27 hours from now.

SpaceX is targeting Saturday, July 27 for a Falcon 9 launch of 23 Starlink satellites to low-Earth orbit from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Liftoff is targeted for 12:21 a.m. ET, with backup opportunities available until 4:21 a.m. ET.

And here is their blogpost, dated 2024-07-25, announcing that the mishap report has been submitted to the FAA, and discussing some of the details.

During the first burn of Falcon 9’s second stage engine, a liquid oxygen leak developed within the insulation around the upper stage engine. The cause of the leak was identified as a crack in a sense line for a pressure sensor attached to the vehicle’s oxygen system. This line cracked due to fatigue caused by high loading from engine vibration and looseness in the clamp that normally constrains the line.

[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

A tweet from Musk

Upper stage restart to raise perigee resulted in an engine RUD for reasons currently unknown. Team is reviewing data tonight to understand root cause.

Starlink satellites were deployed, but the perigee may be too low for them to raise orbit. Will know more in a few hours.

38
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by ptfrd@sh.itjust.works to c/spacex@sh.itjust.works

During tonight’s Falcon 9 launch of Starlink from Space Launch Complex 4 East at Vandenberg Space Force Base in California, the second stage engine did not complete its second burn. As a result, the Starlink satellites were deployed into a lower than intended orbit. SpaceX has made contact with five of the satellites so far and is attempting to have them raise orbit using their ion thrusters.

There's also a tweet saying the same thing in fewer words.

This is the affected mission: Starlink 9-3 launch bulletin

Let's hope it was due to SpaceX pushing the envelope on their in-house Starlink missions in some way, though I have no specific guesses along those lines. Perhaps a manufacturing defect or an operational mistake are more likely to be the leading candidates for the cause.

[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 11 points 4 months ago

In recent months it became clear that if Maezawa's mission happened, it would not occur until at least the early 2030s—at least a decade after the original plan.

The original target was 2023, so is Berger saying he already had inside information that it wouldn't fly before 2033?

If, yesterday, you'd told me 2027, I'd have believed you!

We might actually find out, because there was a 2nd circumlunar tourist trip planned. If that's still going ahead, maybe it'll just be promoted to the 'slot' that was previously allocated to Dear Moon?

[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 months ago

I don’t mean SpaceX, I mean Elon Musk

Neither your comment, nor the article you are commenting about, mentions Elon Musk once! What am I supposed to think?

And if it's him you're talking about, then what does your term "disgusting extravagance" apply to? All those super yachts and private islands he owns and spends so much time on? /s

[-] ptfrd@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 months ago

Are all rocket missions a "disgusting extravagance" or just the SpaceX ones?

The dozens of launches to the ISS? The Intuitive Machines moon lander from couple of months ago? All those TV satellites servicing various parts of the world? The hundreds of communications satellites?

13
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by ptfrd@sh.itjust.works to c/spacex@sh.itjust.works

Quote from Bill Nelson:

... SpaceX, by having the return of the first stage, has brought the cost down significantly. That has affected the entire launch industry. We'll be seeing attempts at bringing the second stage down on some missions.

The key sentence is (currently) 52 minutes and 48 seconds into the video. Approximately 49 minutes after the event started.

No other mention is made of this. Should we assume he's specifically referring to the 2nd Stage of the Falcon 9? What is the likelihood that he is mistaken? Could he just be thinking of the existing deorbit procedure? Or could SpaceX be putting parachutes on some of their 2nd Stages in the near future?

view more: next ›

ptfrd

joined 7 months ago