/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7409321
is there a webcast?

>>7409321
>After an extensive root cause analysis, we have been able to attribute every failure to the fact that the system was designed by shitskins and manchildren getting paid $10 an hour, and led by a man with no qualifications besides being rich.

>>7409327
>meme response

>>7409324
this. is there?

apparently it's scheduled around 3 eastern, so basically right now, I want a damn webcast

failure was caused by failed strut in 2nd stage liquid oxygen (LO2) tank, releasing helium into LO2 tank.
0 retweets 0 favorites

Musk: The release of helium into the LO2 tank caused the overpressure event.

Musk: When the strut failed, the helium tank shot to the top of the tank because of buoyancy.

Cutting corners in order to reduce the price of your product only works up to a certain point.

Musk: SpaceX has been able to replicate the failure in some struts tested on the ground.

Musk: Additional struts unlikely to help. Each strut is made to handle twice the load it actually experiences in flight.

Musk: Emphasizing this is a preliminary conclusion - the most probable cause - at this point, not a definitive conclusion.

Okay, so it was a strut from a supplier that failed way below rated load, releasing a helium tank in the upper stage LOX tank, causing it to release its helium, overpressurizing the tank so it burst. They've reproduced the issue by testing thousands of struts, and found that the occasional one is weak way below spec.

They're fixing it by:
a) going to a new strut type and supplier, and
b) individually testing each strut before installation.

They will fly again no sooner than September. The delay may be longer. This isn't expected to affect their long-term progress.

lol enjoy your grounded space program you incompetent American pigdogs

Musk: We don't test each component individually. Maybe we should.

Customers: HOLY SHIT YOU SHOULD

>>7409395
>mfw an Atlas V launched from the very same complex last week
>mfw another Atlas V is launching wednesday night
stay assblasted, yuropoor

>>7409406
>Atlas V
built by Russians!

>>7409411
Russian sourced engine, still better than anything you could build, chump.

>>7409422
So you're part of the team that shot down the falcon 9 with a high-energy-laser?

>>7409422

Seems legit, but you didnt actually send a timestamp

>>7409422
I hope that safety badge protects you from American exploding rocket debris!

>>7409422
LM was required to prove that they could build it in USA if necessary before being permitted to import it.

The only thing they can't do is build it as cheaply, due to the far lower wages of Russian technicians; pennies on the dollar for skilled American labor.

>>7409428
High enough energy to puncture both tanks and melt a strut that was immersed in a cryogenic fluid.
>>7409429
Where are my manners?
>>7409432
Do you even Range Safety Clear, bro?
>>7409443
It certainly wouldn't be as cheap, but it makes no difference now. They agreed a few years later that Delta IV provided sufficient backup in case of a supply disruption. The license runs out anyway in 2020 or so, would be pointless to start up just to build a couple of them.

>>7409428
>So you're part of the team that shot down the falcon 9 with a high-energy-laser?
Stupid conspiracy tbh. The high energy laser facility on Merritt island is currently in the process of changing hands from three gov agencies (NASA, USAF, USnavy) to the university of Central Florida. I highly doubt they have any of the lasers running atm.

>>7409406
It's actually a Delta IV

>>7409405
before
>I honestly don't know how other companies build their rockets to be so expensive
now
>"There will be some cost increase to the rocket"

kek

I also wonder how parts will hold up if he actually wants to start reusing his rockets.

>>7409483
There's probably refurbishing involved.

>>7409490
What, like remove and replacing all the struts? That's not refurb, that's building a new rocket.

Sounds suspiciously like RS-25 "refurbishment"

>>7409498
They probably won't know what will need replacing until they get a successful first stage landing.

because privatized space programs are a joke and hungry niggers that only know action script 3 can code shit for rockets and mexico isnt the best place to have any parts made for anything ever ask GM

>>7409483
If anything, this helps the case for a fully reusable rocket.

On a large vehicle, it's very difficult to test things like structural integrity under G-load and aerodynamic pressure except by flying.

This plan of testing components individually before flight sounds good, but it's possible to damage components by load-testing, or to install them incorrectly. Conventional aerospace practices like shakedown flights produce much better results than hoping to get everything perfect without a test flight every time.

>>7409498
The issue here is that the strut, which came from an outside supplier and was trusted to be of good quality, was FAULTY, not that these struts have some % chance of failing on every flight.

To reproduce the issue, they had to test thousands of struts, not test one strut thousands of times.

As an engineer myself I find it hard to believe a strut certified to withstand up to 10,000 lbs of force failed on a 2,000 lbs force. Even with manufacture defects.
So either
1. They are lying and don't have a clue as to the reason of the accident.
2. Someone deliberately tampered the strut thus sabotage.
3. They are outsourcing the struts to a medieval level tech foundry. Which begs the question on who is managing the project and how soon will it take to sack said person.

>>7409851
Might have been an issue with installation, my ikea closets would also fail at one fifth their rated capacity if I left all the screws out

>>7409884
Musk: SpaceX has been able to replicate the failure in some struts tested on the ground.

Musk: Additional struts unlikely to help. Each strut is made to handle twice the load it actually experiences in flight.

Musk: Emphasizing this is a preliminary conclusion - the most probable cause - at this point, not a definitive conclusion.


Either he is lying, SpaceX doesn't know how to properly install a strut or it's not an installation issue.

>>7409851
They said they were able to reproduce it, after load-testing many of the struts.

>2. Someone deliberately tampered the strut thus sabotage.
This remains a distinct possibility. The FAA investigation will likely pry into operations at the strut supplier.

However, sometimes weird shit just happens. Remember that these were struts inside a liquid oxygen tank. They will have been cooled to cryogenic temperatures and brought up to room temperature repeatedly. There was a suggestion that something funky happened with the crystal structure of the metal, which could have made it brittle in one spot.

>>7409898
>SpaceX has been able to replicate the failure in some struts tested on the ground.
If this is remotely true ALL engineers involved have a professional duty (jail time if omission at least in my country) to denounce the supplier publicly and raise public awareness so all client of said supplier are made aware that its part cannot be trusted.

>>7409904
Whether this strut was made deliberately weak as an act of sabotage or not, it was a serious failure by SpaceX to not load test each individual structural component which could, by itself, cause a vehicle loss, prior to installing it.

There's always some possibility of a bad component. When $100+ million is on the line, you either check that the component is good, or you build in enough redundant components that a foreseeable amount of bad ones will not cause failure. Designed safety factor on a single point of failure means nothing when the tested safety factor is zero.

>>7409898

Have you ever left your office and gone put into the field? This stuff happens all the time in the real world. The only difference is that either it will start to fatigue and get noticed, or the life of the compromised component exceeds the service life. The difference here is that the failure is catastrophic.

Testing and inspections only reduce the chance of failure, not eliminate it. Spacex needs to strike a balance on what is an acceptable failure rate and do the economics.

>>7409912
What professionals are required to do on paper, and what they're actually required to do as is enforced, can be very different.

Doctors, for instance, are generally required to report each other to the "college of physicians" when they commit misconduct or show incompetence. However, nearly every doctor knows dangerously incompetent colleagues, and does not report them.

>>7410066
> source: it's just general knowledge man!

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9

>before assplosion
Launches to date: 18/18
>after assplosion
Launches to date: 19

TIP TOP

Well I'm glad to hear that they decided it was worth making it possible for the capsule to pop its chute if this ever happens again.

>tfw this kind of incident will never happen again and you will never see the chute save a cargo

>>7410075
There are ways to ask for a source or express skepticism without just being a dick about it.

I don't have a source handy, and if I did dig one up, it wouldn't be authoritative. You can't really have statistics on how much stuff gets hidden, only on how much hidden stuff gets found out. By its nature, it's not something that gets talked about in public a lot, but it is very common for doctors to cover up each other's mistakes.

>>7409321
>SpaceX
Meh, do people still care bout them? When you put aside the lousy PR about muh Mars colony and muh economically viable reusability, there isn't much left.

Look at this fucker.
>Twice as much capacity
>Better insertion precision
>Most reliable commercial vehicle ever
67th consecutive success on the 20th of August, people.

>>7410153
>muh economically viable reusability
together with reliablity that's the most important thing.

>>7410153
>When you put aside the lousy PR about muh Mars colony and muh economically viable reusability, there isn't much left.
Just the lowest prices and the most capable vehicle, both by large margins, and "economically viable reusability" isn't something to be set casually aside.

And before you start arguing that Falcon Heavy isn't flying yet, remember that this is a business where you have to order launches years in advance.

>Ariane 5
90s technology. Costly despite heavy subsidies. Took six years to reach 14 flights, and failed 4 times in the process.

The Falcon 9/Heavy system shows every sign of being a far superior system, it's just a younger one.

>>7410153
Nigga what? ArianneSpace is heavily government subsidized. They're commercial like a driver's license is commercial.

>>7409480
What a fucking dumbass
>I can cut costs on a space program, everyone else is morons!
Now he fails like the fag he is and realizes everyone else is smarter than him

>>7410601
This is unlikely to increase costs by even, say, 1.5x. And even a 150% price hike would still leave Falcon 9 cheaper than the competiton.

>>7410601
One launch failure in the first twenty flights is not bad at all for a new rocket.

This isn't due to cutting corners unreasonably, this is just part of the learning curve.

Besides that, they're on the brink of making stage recovery work. That will drastically cut launch costs, more than making up for increased quality control efforts.

>>7409387
>rocket
>safety factor only 2

So the actual question is can they sue the manufacturer for not upholding their quality standard?

>>7411519
You can't afford a lot of extra mass on a rocket. That's a major reason for it being so hard, along with the extreme performance requirements and difficulty of doing meaningful testing.

While the normal engineering response to these extreme stresses would be to bulk things up until you weren't worried about them anymore, if you did that with a rocket, it wouldn't go to space.

>>7411519
>safety factor only 2
True pros go with 0,9 to 1,1

>>7411527
What was the quality standard? If they tested thousands and had a couple fail, maybe that was within the specified failure rate.

Also, typically contracts in high risk business like space launch prevent suing the subcontractor over something like this. If they didn't, the subs would never get in the business in the first place.

>>7411962
>,

>>7411962
","9 isn't that an un-safety factor? You calculate what will theoretically be able to handle the exact amount of stress/cyclic loading/impulse, and then decrease the strength.

>>7409321
Was there any question who made it fail?

>>7411519
Safety factor of 2 is common with space grade shit iirc

Source: my time working on Google Lunar X prize

The /sci/ Hyperloop team is looking for an Aero Engineer to lead the pod design
see
>>7413863

>>7413909

consider suicide

>>7410153
Yeah, besides the fact that their rockets are by far the cheapest, soon to be reusable, the most powerful in terms of thrust, and that they fund the goal of having a human civilization established on Mars, SpaceX is terrible.

It's like the greeks. I mean, besides their advances in architecture, science, philosophy, logic, technology, plumbing, and politics, how important were they really?

>>7414332
Topkek m8

>>7414274
whats that gotta be with being a white ?
are you calling me white or something ?

>>7413909
>>>/pol/

>>7414274
>>>/lit/

SpaceXplode is kill. FINISHED. BANKRUPT. OVER!

Another Elon Musk business FUNDED BY THE TAX PAYERS.. aka YOU!

That evil motherfucker is a the biggest welfare queen in the world! He became billionaire by getting tax handouts from government.

Fuck him!

> Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies

>Los Angeles entrepreneur Elon Musk has built a multibillion-dollar fortune running companies that make electric cars, sell solar panels and launch rockets into space.

>And he's built those companies with the help of billions in government subsidies.

>"He definitely goes where there is government money," said Dan Dolev, an analyst at Jefferies Equity Research. "That's a great strategy, but the government will cut you off one day."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html#page=1

>>7414444
>>>/reddit/ and fucking stay there you piece of shit.

>Musk: the internet hate machine, or /sci/ as i like to call it, was able to combine all their hate for my company and will my rocket to fail. that is why we should BAN 4CHAN.

>>7414460
Elon honestly looks like he sold his soul to the devil in the right picture. Guess that would explain the hair growth.

Oh Elon, handsome for a man.

>>7414464
Why so mad?

>>7414487
I had a good laugh. Thanks, friend.