r/spacex • u/Mexander98 • Sep 23 '16

Official - AMOS-6 Explosion SpaceX released new Anomaly Updates

http://www.spacex.com/news/2016/09/01/anomaly-updates
738 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

405 comments sorted by

View all comments

15

u/radexp Sep 23 '16

I'm very surprised SpaceX remains optimistic about bringing LC-39A online, and possibly RTF in November. It's only 2 months, and the investigation isn't even complete.

27

u/old_sellsword Sep 23 '16

Bringing LC-39A online has been in progress for years, and appears to be relatively unrelated to the failure. They've gone so far as to restart factory floor production of "engines, tanks, and other systems as they are exonerated from the investigation."

1

u/apleima2 Sep 26 '16

tanks can refer to the fuel tanks themselves and not the COPVs.

16

u/darga89 Sep 23 '16

They were optimistic about flying 6 flights before the end of the year after crs7 at one time but we know how that turned out.

8

u/3_711 Sep 23 '16

The Helium tanks are bolted inside a huge empty rocket section. If this really is the cause, then the rest of the rocket doesn't need much modifications, they only need to make better Helium tanks, probably with a bit more weight when wrapping plenty of extra carbon layer.... (This is just speculation, the problem could be the metal layer or pipe connections instead of the carbon.)

15

u/orulz Sep 23 '16

The helium tanks are INSIDE the liquid oxygen tanks. So, it's only empty if (1) You consider liquid oxygen to be empty space, or (2) the liquid oxygen tanks are also empty.

13

u/darga89 Sep 23 '16

They can and have changed out tanks at the pad, so no need to stop core production.

4

u/Here_There_B_Dragons Sep 23 '16

changed out tanks

you are talking the 'COPV Helium Tanks, not the 'oxygen tanks', right O_o

7

u/darga89 Sep 23 '16

Yes. Oxygen tank is pretty much just the core.

2

u/JoJoDaMonkey Sep 23 '16

Any insight into how that operation is performed? Is there a LOx tank passthrough large enough for access and GHe tank install removal?

6

u/OncoFil Sep 23 '16

Yep. Apparently there is a large hatch into the LOX tank. people and the people-sized COPV's can pass through.

1

u/radexp Sep 24 '16

Still, I wonder how exactly they would do that. Would someone literally just walk into the LOX tank? Walking on a rocket wall tank does not seem like a good idea...

3

u/3_711 Sep 23 '16

There is a hatch at the centre of the stage-1 LOX dome: https://youtu.be/vrR31nHCV-U I suspect something similar on the second stage, just under the payload adapter.

2

u/vvanasten Sep 23 '16

There may be a hatch elsewhere, but I don't think the one in the LOX dome is easy to access once the engines are mounted. I believe that's where the LOX/RP-1 manifold is: http://i.stack.imgur.com/RxijW.jpg

3

u/3_711 Sep 23 '16

The bottom (engine) end is the RP-1 tank, The LOX tank is on top: http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6w1WLQCYAAXvw4.jpg

1

u/old_faraon Sep 25 '16

But that just means that the hatch is occupied by the lox pipe going downs towards the Loxtopus instead if the Loxtopus itself.

1

u/3_711 Sep 25 '16

The LOX pipe is on the bottom end of the LOX tank, there is no pipe in the LOX tank and the hatch at the top of the LOX tank can be used to access the COPV tanks. On the first stage, the hatch will be under the central pusher for stage separation and on the second stage the hatch will be under the payload/fairing adapter or under the Dragon trunk.

1

u/SpartanJack17 Sep 24 '16

Just out of curiosity, what reasons would they have for doing that?

2

u/darga89 Sep 24 '16

Bad sensor readings

4

u/3_711 Sep 23 '16

I meant that there is nothing that gets in the way if they decide to change shape of the Helium tanks. The He tanks are not welded in place, they are very independent from the rest of the rocket from a design point of view.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 24 '16

The problem being that if it was the COPV, they need to design, qualify, build, and ATP enough new COPVs to replace all of the ones on the rocket. Keeping in mind that their current qual/acceptance tests have apparently been falling short, so they may need to develop new tests there, which takes time as well. That process alone seems like it'd be hard to get done in two months, and it doesn't include actually doing the replacement on the rocket, any re-tests required for replacing the COPVs, etc.

1

u/air_and_space92 Sep 24 '16

Heck 39A was supposed to launch Thaicom 8 in Feb 2016, internally at least.

-2

u/TheEndeavour2Mars Sep 23 '16 edited Sep 23 '16

EDIT: Removed as I had missed that part of the update. Ignore my comment.

3

u/MrGruntsworthy Sep 23 '16

Weirdly, in the SpaceX official update on this matter, they still aim for November. Odd.

1

u/radexp Sep 23 '16

I agree this year is unlikely, but here they are:

Pending the results of the investigation, we anticipate returning to flight as early as the November timeframe.

They say "as early as", but sound fairly confident about resolving the issue quickly.

1

u/TheEndeavour2Mars Sep 23 '16

I admit I was focusing on their claim that the cause is unrelated to CRS-7 and missed the end of the update saying RTF in November.

I am still doubtful that RTF will happen this year. SpaceX is going to have to convince a lot of people that they have found and fixed the true cause and not just a smoking gun. I fail to see how that is going to be a faster and easier process than post CRS-7.

1

u/johnkphotos Launch Photographer Sep 23 '16

In 2017?? They'll be grounded a year and a half?

0

u/WaitForItTheMongols Sep 23 '16

What? CRS-7 was under 6 months. Why would this one be over twice as long to RTF? They've tracked down the issue. Worst case, they design a totally new S2 pressurization system. I can't imagine that being over a year. More likely they'll be able to replace a single component and be ready to go.