Kyle
Armchair Astronaut
Last edited by a moderator:
Updates SpaceX DM-1 capsule lost during static fire test
- Thread starter Kyle
- Start date
MaverickSawyer
Acolyte of the Probe
I see nothing regarding the capsule having been destroyed, merely that there was an anomaly. Care to provide proof to back up the claim?
Kyle
Armchair Astronaut
Multiple "unconfirmed" sources, such as Emre Kelly from Florida Today, and a poster on NSF.com who has seen video of the capsule "blowing up into millions of pieces". Also there was a sustained hydrazine fire observed at the Cape for quite a while there, with enough smoke to be visible from radar. Based on this, I think it's safe to say the capsule has been completely lost.
EDIT: Given nothing has been confirmed yet, I've updated the title until more facts come in.
Last edited:
Linguofreak
Well-known member
Scott Manley has done a video on the subject in which he shows footage of the smoke plume. I'm not quite ready to take the "blown to pieces" rumors at face value, but given the size of the plume and hypergolicity of N2O4 with hydrazines, I have trouble imagining a scenario in which that smoke plume could be generated without the capsule being damaged beyond repair, even if it's still in one piece.
IronRain
The One and Only (AFAIK)
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2009
- Messages
- 3,488
- Reaction score
- 407
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Utrecht
- Website
- www.spaceflightnewsapi.net
[ame="https://twitter.com/Astronut099/status/1119825093742530560"]Astronut099 on Twitter: "Yep, this isn’t good...… "[/ame]
Took the liberty of updating the title...
Took the liberty of updating the title...
MaverickSawyer
Acolyte of the Probe
...
Holy
Holy
Linguofreak
Well-known member
Yeah, seeing that, I'd expect:
1) Dragon will not fly with crew this year.
2) No capsule with liquid fuel LES thrusters is likely to ever be man-rated.
3) No capsule with integrated LES thrusters is likely to ever be man-rated.
4) Dragon will consequently not fly with crew until a conventional escape tower for it has been developed.
5) Dragon may never fly with crew.
6) No cargo dragon with fueled LES thrusters is likely to be allowed to dock with the ISS.
1) Dragon will not fly with crew this year.
2) No capsule with liquid fuel LES thrusters is likely to ever be man-rated.
3) No capsule with integrated LES thrusters is likely to ever be man-rated.
4) Dragon will consequently not fly with crew until a conventional escape tower for it has been developed.
5) Dragon may never fly with crew.
6) No cargo dragon with fueled LES thrusters is likely to be allowed to dock with the ISS.
steph
Well-known member
As bad as it is, it's still a good thing that it happened during testing, and that IS the purpose of rigorous testing : catching this kind of stuff before it happens when it's manned. In spaceflight, you have to be prepared for this kind of stuff. Now, how it managed to do an ISS flight without this specific kind of test happening, I don't know. As in, if it's a cargo flight, in-flight abort might really not be necessary. I simply don't know
steph
Well-known member
I'm reading reports on reddit of the capsule being so obliterated that they literally can't find it anymore :rofl:
Seems a bit rash no?
If we tar all LES thursters with the same brush how can we innovate?
Kyle
Armchair Astronaut
Speculating without facts here, but that looks like a significant over-pressurization event of a COPV.
RisingFury
OBSP developer
statisticsnerd
Active member
Thank God this happened during testing rather than during the planned DM-2 mission. Not only would people have died, but I can't imagine that NASA would ever trust SpaceX to send up astronauts on their rockets again.
This is yet another reminder that spaceflight is very dangerous business.
This is yet another reminder that spaceflight is very dangerous business.
Kyle
Armchair Astronaut
SpaceX tested these particular set of Superdraco engines probably dozens, if not hundreds, of times before the DM-1 mission with nothing like this happening. That really tells me that the failure is related to the stresses the capsule went through returning to Earth. Really wouldn't be surprised if salt water corrosion caused a tank to burst. That's probably the best case scenario right now, because that points to problems reusing the Dragon, as opposed to a major flaw with the design of the engine itself. If salt water is ruled out and this actually was a result of a major design flaw of the Superdraco engine, then CCP has been dealt a substantial setback indeed.
Last edited:
Linguofreak
Well-known member
LES thrusters, really, probably shouldn't be very innovative. The rest of the spacecraft, sure, but for launch escape you want reliability and safety, not cutting edge. It's a seatbelt, not an engine, so to speak.
Of course, SpaceX was trying to do propulsive landing, but that had already been abandoned.
Hypergolic propellants are a bomb if the tanks are ever breached, whereas a solid propellant will have its maximum burn rate in an intact chamber and will sputter out if the chamber develops spontaneous unplanned nozzles of significant size.
Hypergols are fine on lower stages, unmanned spacecraft, or in applications like RCS thrusters where the required quantities are small and less damaging if they do cook off, but I guarantee you that after this, no space agency will accept liquid fuel, integrated LES motors on a manned spacecraft.
RisingFury
OBSP developer
"After the failure of Apollo 1, I can guarantee you that no country will fly to the Moon!"
But then technical changes were made...
But then technical changes were made...
