• Smokey_the_Bear

    Can’t wait for November! I hope it goes flawlessly.

  • windbourne

    SX really is exciting. Hopefully, BO and Bigelow crank up their pace as well.

  • SamuelRoman13

    Passengers, not crew. It will be controlled from the ground. Or they are observers. That is all you will see and hear their comments. They may open the hatch. About the same as cargo on Falcon-1. Such as the insects shipped to ISS. No Buck Rogers or Tom Paris.

  • windbourne

    First of, while automated, the pilot can take full control when want to. Think airbus which is identical( pilots do not control airbus unless they flip switches, or airbus hands it to them ).

    As to issues, the last time a rocket was lost was at #29. They are now at 60, and will be past 75 when crew goes. IOW, 45+ launches past an issue.

    As to block 5, they will have 20+ launches of them by that time.

    I would much rather fly a spacex esp with a tested launcher than not.

  • Kirk

    Doug, were you invited?

  • Michael Halpern

    You forgot to mention how much every Merlin engine is tested before its first flight and between flights.

  • Not Invented Here

    To ride a rocket(dif. ver.) that has blown up twice and the new version only 7 test flights,yes or dummies I don’t know which. They ought too ask for the chicken, I mean the family rocket. SRB. But hey, you got to go with what they give you.

    SRB blew up once too, and it killed 7 people.

    Also back when NASA planed to fly astronauts on Ares-I, there was only going to be two (2) test flights. So count yourself lucky that you’re going to flew on Falcon 9 which will have dozens of flights before launching people.

  • envy

    The “7 test flights” isn’t really a thing. NASA is requiring 5 prop loadings to demonstrate the load sequence with crew. Those will happen on DM-1, in-flight abort, and DM-2 static fire.

    Block 5 will probably have around 20 “test” flights before any people fly on it. It has already flown 4 times with a 5th next week, and has about 14 more scheduled before DM-2.

    F9 v1.2 in general will have, at the current rate, almost 50 consecutive successful missions before flying crew. There are only a few vehicles around with that kind of record: Soyuz-FG, Atlas V, Ariane 5 ECA, Delta II, and Delta IV, and that’s about it.

  • Michael Halpern

    SRMs if something happens release a lot of energy at once, with LRMs this isn’t always the case see CRS-3, for crew LRBs are considered generally safer,

  • Steve Ksiazek

    What are you going to call the launcher that actually includes the new COPV design, Block 6 ? The new COPV design hasn’t flown yet, even though they re-flew the previous block 5 launcher. I wonder how busy the factory is in Hawthorne, with so few new first stages and merlin engines being produced.

  • Tom Billings

    Samuel, you are either trying to compress too much criticism into one block of text, or your snark got ahead of your enumeration of objections, or both. You seem to have little theme, but sneer, sneer, sneer. Beyond that, it was close to incomprehensible.

    Please, when you cannot hold to a single theme through what would otherwise be called a large paragraph, you need paragraph and sentence diagramming skills. You should also get a Writing/English teacher that actually teaches competent grammar and syntax as well.

  • windbourne

    The NEW COPV design simply adds a metal layer. IOW, It should actually be stronger and have less issues. And with NASA saying 7 launches is enough and plenty to go, I think that they will be OK.

    As to the factory, lets see. They are building F9 and FH. Some of these will be expendable, though most will not. However, every single stage 2, and an occasional new stage 1, will be needed. Assuming they are launching 50 / year, then they will probably use around 60-70 merlins. Not bad.
    Then add on top of that, the BFR, with lots of raptors, will be starting in the next years.
    So, I think that the factory will have PLENTY of things to do.

  • SamuelRoman13

    Never heard of that accident. ATK said that in 500 used SRB none have ever blew up on their on. Maybe only 2 test flights, but about 300 flights on the Shuttle @ 2 each.I think that SRBs are so safe that 2 would be good.

  • SamuelRoman13

    Great. The flight rate from the SpaceX manafest is declining. They have taken the dates off, but as I remember they will only have gov. flights and ride share which might not launch on time compared to how long the current one has taken. Shotwell said there was only 8 large(14,000lbs) sats ordered last year. Which take about 3 years to orbit. I don’t think that SpaceX got any of them. Of course most SpaceX launches are of the 10,000lb class. Hard to tell but it looks like they do not have many of those.

  • SamuelRoman13

    I disagree. Is the 700psi and destruct explosives more than the chemical explosion? SRB have never exploded on ther on. LRB also throw debris a great distance and the capsule must fly at least 5mi away to be sure none hits the parachutes. In the air you may be correct since LRB would be an uncontained explosion. How far did pieces of the turbo pump fly? On the ground though(Amos) with the fire. But the capsule will be 5mi away. I checked but I do not remember how far Dragon and Orion flew. I do not think it was far enough.

  • Michael Halpern

    Lrbs can be shut down, as for srbs exploding, a Delta II failure would say otherwise

  • Michael Halpern

    No rocket engine has ever exploded on its own, there’s always some sort of defect, Falcon 9 has demonstrated a capability last seen on Saturn 1B, first stage engine out. The reason why LRMs are prefered for crew is vibration, not only can the vibration from the SRM hurt the crew (ignoring ergonomics), but it can mess up systems vital for crew safety, combustion in a large SRM is inherently unstable, causing vibration.
    There’s even a more recent example of an SRM failing than Delta II, a missile test this year conducted out of Vandenberg. When a SRM fails it blows up, no matter the defect, when a LRM has problems you will often be able to recover from it, depending on the nature of the failure and design of the rocket. And this is largely because the fuel and oxidizer are kept separate. the only type of LRM susceptible to minor issues causing major failure are hypergolics, and that is more to do with if the tanks aren’t well protected and valves aren’t well made or engineered.

  • Michael Halpern

    Dragon flew far enough, on pad abort, even when one of the superdracos underpreformed,

  • Michael Halpern

    in hundreds of merlin engine flights only 1 has failed and that failure did not end the mission, both f9 failures where related to COPV first was due to a supplier giving a bad strut, the second was due to a previously unheard of failure path. SRM failures may be rarer, but they harder to respond to, as in all failures are very energetic, LRMs can be fault tollerant, on f9 and FH Merlin has flown 628 times, one non-critical failure, zero critical engine failures, neither CRS-7 or AMOS-6 were engine related,

  • Terry Stetler

    You’re neglecting the 4,400+ StarLink phase 1 and 7500+ StarLink phase 2 batch deployed constellation launches, phase 1 starting deployment next year. That’ll keep them busy for quite some time. Now add commercial cargo & crew and other milsat, leo and beo launches.

  • Kirk

    > SRB have never exploded on their on.

    What about the January 1997 Delta II loss?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_aHEit-SqA

  • SamuelRoman13

    NASA said that SpaceX did not follow the manufactures recommendation for the strut. Blaming SpaceX in other words.

  • SamuelRoman13

    Destruct. I said on their on.

  • SamuelRoman13

    I don’t know about vibration, but the video of crew shaking I have seen on the start of Star Trek Enterprise. The crews survived it and HST made it to orbit ok. So it would seem it does not mater.

  • SamuelRoman13

    Do you know if the distance was far enough to clear a destruct cloud?

  • SamuelRoman13

    Destruct caused them to explode or rapidly release the 700 psi within. The footprint may be found here and used to find how far Starliner has to go. The Range put out a study on Titan 4? destruct. I think the footprint was 3 miles.

  • SamuelRoman13

    I have been told before that my writing skills are bad. I had to rewrite one before it was accepted. I prefer to be called Sam.

  • SamuelRoman13

    True. How long before they make a profit on that?

  • Michael Halpern

    Yes

  • Michael Halpern

    Vibration makes things difficult

  • Michael Halpern

    There are different stories

  • Michael Halpern

    According to NASA it was far enough, with an under preforming engine and unfavorable wind

  • envy

    What does that have to do with crew? The flights between now and DM-1 are firm contracts and the spacecraft are mostly on schedule.

    GEO orders are in a lull, due to anticipated competition from LEO constellations (OneWeb etc.) If those fall through, GEO orders will pick up. If not, SpaceX will be plenty busy launching constellations. Either way the manifest will be reasonably steady going forward. It’s “shrinking” right now because SpaceX is working through 3-4 years worth of backlogged orders in about 18 months. That’s not a sign that the launch market overall is declining.

  • envy
  • envy

    No, the first SRB blew up on that Delta before the self-destruct was activated. And it does not matter that it was the self-destruct that blew the rest: either way they all blew.

    The vast majority (~95%) of mass in a LRB is liquid, which DOES NOT become debris. In a SRB, it is ~99% solid which all becomes debris, and not just sheet metal fragments but FLAMING chunks of solid propellant that will melt parachutes and lines.