• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

SpaceX rocket explodes while heading to space station

Started by 136 or 142, June 28, 2015, 08:37:59 AM


Early days, but a big setback nevertheless. Lots of hopes and money just went up in flames. I hope they keep trying.

ItsOver

Just heard on the radio.  I'm sure this won't deter Mr. Musk.  Not long after a Progress failure.  Just shows you still can't have too many back-up plans.

Jackstar

I just saved 15% on my space vehicle insurance by switching to GEICO!

WOTR

I think that their tweet may be understating things...


The vehicle experienced an anomaly on ascent. Team is investigating. Updates to come.

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: ItsOver on June 28, 2015, 09:46:10 AM
Just heard on the radio.  I'm sure this won't deter Mr. Musk.  Not long after a Progress failure.  Just shows you still can't have too many back-up plans.

Actually this is the third failure in the last year. An Antares blew up on the launch pad recently along with the Progress burning up. Kind of a bad year for the ISS. 

chefist

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on June 28, 2015, 01:20:27 PM
Actually this is the third failure in the last year. An Antares blew up on the launch pad recently along with the Progress burning up. Kind of a bad year for the ISS.

All the old guard has retired...there was a huge gap in experience in space flight AND space academia from 1990 to 2010....it shows....

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on June 28, 2015, 01:20:27 PM
Actually this is the third failure in the last year. An Antares blew up on the launch pad recently along with the Progress burning up. Kind of a bad year for the ISS.

Not to mention the Virgin Galactic crash, not that that was ready for prime time.

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: chefist on June 28, 2015, 01:22:18 PM
All the old guard has retired...there was a huge gap in experience in space flight AND space academia from 1990 to 2010....it shows....

That and the words "save money" and "launch system" do not often mix well. The "private" space initiative (as though Boeing/Lockheed/ULA etc. aren't private enough)is really just the russification of our launch systems. It's moving from quality and rare failures such as with the Atlas and Delta systems to a so-cheap-we-can-afford-the-failures model.

Don't get me wrong, I respect Elon Musk's tenacious vision, but Space X's original idea of saving money through manipulating the ins and outs of government contracting seems to have been compromised and they're cutting costs in the engineering as well.

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: Georgie For President 2216 on June 28, 2015, 01:26:28 PM
Not to mention the Virgin Galactic crash, not that that was ready for prime time.

Definitely not ready for prime time. That program scares the hell out of me, they're way outside the comfort zones of aerospace engineering and breaking new ground . . . with a spacecraft intended for public passengers. 

chefist

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on June 28, 2015, 01:39:14 PM

Don't get me wrong, I respect Elon Musk's tenacious vision, but Space X's original idea of saving money through manipulating the ins and outs of government contracting seems to have been compromised and they're cutting costs in the engineering as well.
I understand...backlash after NASA burned through billions and had 2 shuttles disintegrate...we could have had safe, effective and value added space exploration if not for the Space Shuttle program...over promise and under deliver...it would have been better to have just perfected a launch and drop program...but hind sight and such...

Russians leading again because they focused on launch and drop...

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: chefist on June 28, 2015, 01:46:43 PM
I understand...backlash after NASA burned through billions and had 2 shuttles disintegrate...we could have had safe, effective and value added space exploration if not for the Space Shuttle program...over promise and under deliver...it would have been better to have just perfected a launch and drop program...but hind sight and such...

Russians leading again because they focused on launch and drop...

Absolutely. The two biggest mistakes NASA has made in its life have been the Space Shuttle and the ISS. They were far too expensive for what they do. What should have happened is that the US retained and continued development on the Saturn V for its heavy lift capability and explored further variations of the Atlas and Delta programs with the singular vision of going to Mars and exploring the solar system. Instead we mostly just stare at the Earth from a space station these days.   

Quote from: chefist on June 28, 2015, 01:46:43 PM
I understand...backlash after NASA burned through billions and had 2 shuttles disintegrate...we could have had safe, effective and value added space exploration if not for the Space Shuttle program...over promise and under deliver...it would have been better to have just perfected a launch and drop program...but hind sight and such...

Russians leading again because they focused on launch and drop...

Well, it was a cool idea  ;D.  It might have at least inspired children to go into science and engineering which I think is the main purpose of manned space flight.  Kind of a big bill for it though.

Oh yeah, and to give those Ruskies hell.  I forgot about that.

chefist

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on June 28, 2015, 02:01:08 PM
Absolutely. The two biggest mistakes NASA has made in its life have been the Space Shuttle and the ISS. They were far too expensive for what they do. What should have happened is that the US retained and continued development on the Saturn V for its heavy lift capability and explored further variations of the Atlas and Delta programs with the singular vision of going to Mars and exploring the solar system. Instead we mostly just stare at the Earth from a space station these days.

I hear ya...I'm cool with a space station/research lab...but we focused way too much on the delivery system, not what we would do when we got up there...SkyLab crashed, Hubble was hobbled...a reliable and efficient launch and drop would have given us the money to invest in the real purpose for being in space...research and exploration...it's all ego...we are soooo smart we can make a Millennium Falcon and fly to the stars! heh...smoke up the arse...have to know how fast you run before you kick a tiger in the ass....

chefist

Quote from: Georgie For President 2216 on June 28, 2015, 02:02:46 PM
Well, it was a cool idea  ;D.  It might have at least inspired children to go into science and engineering which I think is the main purpose of manned space flight.  Kind of a big bill for it though.

It used to be like that...now anything technology based has all the folks going into information technology...everything else is on the back burner...oh sure...you have a smart phone that can process and retrieve whatever an entire corporation or government may need...but we still cant repair a severed spine, launch a rocket into space without 2 in 10 blowing up, feed all the hungry kids even though food stamp allotments go unclaimed...nutz, nutz I tells ya!

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: chefist on June 28, 2015, 02:07:27 PM
I hear ya...I'm cool with a space station/research lab...but we focused way too much on the delivery system, not what we would do when we got up there...SkyLab crashed, Hubble was hobbled...a reliable and efficient launch and drop would have given us the money to invest in the real purpose for being in space...research and exploration...it's all ego...we are soooo smart we can make a Millennium Falcon and fly to the stars! heh...smoke up the arse...have to know how fast you run before you kick a tiger in the ass....

A lot of it was just trying to get the Russians to spend money. Add a healthy dose of the military industrial complex/contracting lobby and you've got yourself a dysfunctional space program that forgot its main purpose.

chefist

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on June 28, 2015, 02:12:49 PM
A lot of it was just trying to get the Russians to spend money. Add a healthy dose of the military industrial complex/contracting lobby and you've got yourself a dysfunctional space program that forgot its main purpose.

no doubt about the military items that were counted as "experiments" up there...sucks really...it took 1/10 of the economy to put us on the moon with Apollo...we should have a fusion reactor system for all our electrical by now with that type of focus...

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: Georgie For President 2216 on June 28, 2015, 02:02:46 PM
Well, it was a cool idea  ;D .  It might have at least inspired children to go into science and engineering which I think is the main purpose of manned space flight.  Kind of a big bill for it though.

Oh yeah, and to give those Ruskies hell.  I forgot about that.

It was at least inspiring so long as it didn't fail. But the sad truth is, if you ever see a Space Shuttle up close and in person you think of duct tape and gum and realize just how crazy it was to fly in one.

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: chefist on June 28, 2015, 02:19:07 PM
no doubt about the military items that were counted as "experiments" up there...sucks really...it took 1/10 of the economy to put us on the moon with Apollo...we should have a fusion reactor system for all our electrical by now with that type of focus...

We basically do have fusion. Lockheed quietly developed a really solid design for a compact fusion reactor at the Skunk Works and will have a functioning model within 5 years. Man's energy problem will be a thing of the past within a decade. The media just doesn't want to cover it because cheap free energy is the last thing the climate change industry wants.   

chefist

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on June 28, 2015, 02:25:09 PM
We basically do have fusion. Lockheed quietly developed a really solid design for a compact fusion reactor at the Skunk Works and will have a functioning model within 5 years. Man's energy problem will be a thing of the past within a decade. The media just doesn't want to cover it because cheap free energy is the last thing the climate change industry wants.   

Absolutely...petroleum makes their profits on pump and refine...anti-petroleum makes theirs on the same...just like capitalism v. communism...heroes need enemies or there are no heroes...

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on June 28, 2015, 02:25:09 PM
We basically do have fusion. Lockheed quietly developed a really solid design for a compact fusion reactor at the Skunk Works and will have a functioning model within 5 years. Man's energy problem will be a thing of the past within a decade. The media just doesn't want to cover it because cheap free energy is the last thing the climate change industry wants.   

I know you firmly believe that, but it is pretty difficult for me to understand.  Lockheed suggest they have a proof of concept but nobody knows any details.  The conventional wisdom of the rest of the fusion world, as I understand it, is that you need to go to larger scale reactors in order to reduce the parasitic losses as a percentage of power generated..  Lockheed claims to have gone smaller rather than larger.  they have, again so far as I know, provided no indication of how they might do this.

chefist

Quote from: Georgie For President 2216 on June 28, 2015, 02:34:09 PM
I know you firmly believe that, but it is pretty difficult for me to understand.  Lockheed suggest they have a proof of concept but nobody knows any details.  The conventional wisdom of the rest of the fusion world, as I understand it, is that you need to go to larger scale reactors in order to reduce the parasitic losses as a percentage of power generated..  Lockheed claims to have gone smaller rather than larger.  they have, again so far as I know, provided no indication of how they might do this.

And 50% of power is lost on the primary power lines from the plant to the user...we need to improve that...

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: Georgie For President 2216 on June 28, 2015, 02:34:09 PM
I know you firmly believe that, but it is pretty difficult for me to understand.  Lockheed suggest they have a proof of concept but nobody knows any details.  The conventional wisdom of the rest of the fusion world, as I understand it, is that you need to go to larger scale reactors in order to reduce the parasitic losses as a percentage of power generated..  Lockheed claims to have gone smaller rather than larger.  they have, again so far as I know, provided no indication of how they might do this.

It's in how they're doing it. There is really only one problem standing in the way of fusion energy; magnetic containment of the plasma torus. All the other problems such as achieving net gain are basically done and over with. Lockheed simply eliminated the plasma torus altogether and went with a different geometry, more like a plasma bar contained within a magnetic field that gets stronger the more the plasma tries to push out. Given that you're dealing with with a bar rather than a torus means that your reactor has shrunk considerably and is further scalable downward to some degree. Their initial design is claimed to be about the size of a bus. The reason I'm confident in it is because it's a sound concept where the engineering should be a piece of cake, which is why Lockheed is so confident. There are simply no problems left in fusion when you look at their approach. And, well, it's Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, not some start up company making solar panels.

The reason for going smaller is to make a reactor that can be sent into space. Energy constraints in space are a real problem, most satellites and space craft can only muster a few hundred watts at best. Lockheed's idea is to allow us to put 100 megawatt fusion power supplies in space. Goodbye tiny satellites and hello Battlestar Galactica if we've got that kind of power to work with (along with a decent heavy lift rocket).

ItsOver

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on June 28, 2015, 02:01:08 PM
Absolutely. The two biggest mistakes NASA has made in its life have been the Space Shuttle and the ISS. They were far too expensive for what they do. What should have happened is that the US retained and continued development on the Saturn V for its heavy lift capability and explored further variations of the Atlas and Delta programs with the singular vision of going to Mars and exploring the solar system. Instead we mostly just stare at the Earth from a space station these days.
I wouldn't place all the blame on NASA.  Blame the politicians and, in particular whoever's been in The White House since Kennedy.  You need a vision, and leadership, with funding to match, if you're going to have a GOVERNMENT operated space program, plus a non-bureacratized space agency.  NASA's had decades to become completely infected with the disease of bureaucracy.  The U.S. hasn't had all of the above since Apollo.

I give Elon Musk credit for having vision and taking the risk. albeit with government money, as well as his own.  He works his folks pretty hard, maybe too hard.  So did Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, but it's amazing what can be accomplished with enthusiasm, dedication, and belief in a cause. 

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on June 28, 2015, 02:51:55 PM
It's in how they're doing it. There is really only one problem standing in the way of fusion energy; magnetic containment of the plasma torus. All the other problems such as achieving net gain are basically done and over with. Lockheed simply eliminated the plasma torus altogether and went with a different geometry, more like a plasma bar contained within a magnetic field that gets stronger the more the plasma tries to push out. Given that you're dealing with with a bar rather than a torus means that your reactor has shrunk considerably and is further scalable downward to some degree. Their initial design is claimed to be about the size of a bus. The reason I'm confident in it is because it's a sound concept where the engineering should be a piece of cake, which is why Lockheed is so confident. There are simply no problems left in fusion when you look at their approach. And, well, it's Lockheed Martin Skunk Works, not some start up company making solar panels.

The reason for going smaller is to make a reactor that can be sent into space. Energy constraints in space are a real problem, most satellites and space craft can only muster a few hundred watts at best. Lockheed's idea is to allow us to put 100 megawatt fusion power supplies in space. Goodbye tiny satellites and hello Battlestar Galactica if we've got that kind of power to work with (along with a decent heavy lift rocket).

I just looked up some more on it and it seems like they've released more information since the initial press releases, as you detail.  There still seems to be a big question as to whether they can produce the required magnetic field strength, but I do hope you're right.

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: ItsOver on June 28, 2015, 02:57:09 PM
I wouldn't place all the blame on NASA.  Blame the politicians and, in particular whoever's been in The White House since Kennedy.  You need a vision, and leadership, with funding to match, if you're going to have a GOVERNMENT operated space program, plus a non-bureacratized space agency.  NASA's had decades to become completely infected with the disease of bureaucracy.  The U.S. hasn't had all of the above since Apollo.

I give Elon Musk credit for having vision and taking the risk. albeit with government money, as well as his own.  He works his folks pretty hard, maybe too hard.  So did Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, but it's amazing what can be accomplished with enthusiasm, dedication, and belief in a cause.

Yeah, there's no question that US politicians have been neglectful on the space exploration count (actually, make that all counts across the board for the last 30 years). NASA doesn't even get funding increases that make up for inflation much less pursue a bold Kennedy-like vision.

The trouble with NASA is that its' run by political appointees as you point out. Sometimes you get some good ones such as Michael Griffin, but other times you get some really bad ones such as the current crop. Another problem with NASA is the ever-present problem of internal rivalry, cultures of neglect that build up and cause space shuttles to disintegrate on reentry, and just the general bureaucratic nature of a government operation.

I give Elon Musk credit where credit is due, he's certainly a visionary very driven man. Overall, I'd call him the Edison of our time. But he also has bottom lines to attend to and that's where the devil is as far as SpaceX. I wish him luck, but ultimately there is a push for ever cheaper rockets with which he's going to feel pressure on that bottom line.

chefist

Quote from: Georgie For President 2216 on June 28, 2015, 02:59:01 PM
I just looked up some more on it and it seems like they've released more information since the initial press releases, as you detail.  There still seems to be a big question as to whether they can produce the required magnetic field strength, but I do hope you're right.
I'm sure of 2 things...they want to keep it quiet...AND the government may consider it a patent that they acquire under imminent domain...a possibility...

SciFiAuthor

Quote from: Georgie For President 2216 on June 28, 2015, 02:59:01 PM
I just looked up some more on it and it seems like they've released more information since the initial press releases, as you detail.  There still seems to be a big question as to whether they can produce the required magnetic field strength, but I do hope you're right.

Yes, field strength is integral and a question mark but not a first tier fundamental problem like the overall plasma containment issue. The human race has created some whopper magnetic fields in our history so to me that just becomes a matter of engineering. It'll take several years to be sure, but it doesn't seem to be a fundamental roadblock in light of other things we've done with magnetic fields (I mean really, we can magnetically accelerate two protons to near the speed of light and have them smack into each other).

chefist

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on June 28, 2015, 03:22:02 PM
Yes, field strength is integral and a question mark but not a first tier fundamental problem like the overall plasma containment issue. The human race has created some whopper magnetic fields in our history so to me that just becomes a matter of engineering. It'll take several years to be sure, but it doesn't seem to be a fundamental roadblock in light of other things we've done with magnetic fields (I mean really, we can magnetically accelerate two protons to near the speed of light and have them smack into each other).
Chicken and egg theory...lots of electricity to make the field...need fusion to make the electricity...soon for sure!


Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod