Slashdot Mirror
Government Watchdog Says SpaceX Falcon 9s Are Prone To Cracks (engadget.com)
An anonymous reader shares an Engadget article: SpaceX's Falcon 9 rockets apparently have a serious issue that could delay the company's manned missions. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Government Accountability Office investigated both Boeing and SpaceX -- the corporations that won NASA's space taxi contracts -- and found that Falcon 9's turbine blades suffer from persistent cracks. GAO's preliminary report says these turboblades' tendency to crack is a "major threat to rocket safety," since they pump fuel into Falcon 9's rocket engines. NASA's acting administrator Robert Lightfoot told the WSJ that government officials have known about the issue for months or even years. The agency even told SpaceX that the cracks are too much risk for manned flights. A spokesperson said SpaceX has "qualified [its] engines to be robust" to cracks, but it's now "modifying the design to avoid them altogether."
How all the positive stories about Tesla and SpaceX make reference to Elon but all the negative stories don't even mention him in the summary and often (as in this case) in the article.
Falcon 9 and the space shuttle are the only rockets whose engines have survived the launch so that they could have been inspected. And similar cracks have been found on shuttle engines too. Many other rocket engines very probbly have generated similar cracks during their burn, but those have not been inspected because the engines have gone to the bottom of the ocean.
There have been 28 launches of falcon. During those 28 launches, 279 Merlin 1-series engines have been used, with only 1 major engine problem. And even in that case, the rocket delivered the primary payload to the desired orbit; Each falcon 9 has 10 engines and only on of those 10 engines is critical whose failure leads to mission failure.
So, until now, the engines have had 99.64% reliability, and due the engine redundancy, only 10% of engine failures means mission failure on most launches(upper stage engine may not fail), meaning mission failure probability of 0.04% due failing engine if the engines keep working equally well in the future than they previously have been working.
No, the this turbine thing is not a big problem. Bigger problems are elsewhere, and spaceX is improving the turbine blades. They will continue launching the version with the weak turbine blanes for some time, and it's very unlikely it will cause ANY problems at all, and then later the will release the block 5 model of the rocket with more robust turbine blades.
It seem that the whole issue is "leaked" by some guy who is pissed to spaceX/Elon for something and the media is always eager to post this kind of "leaks" without really understanding what it is all about.
As Elon would say, the cracks may simply lead to Rapid Unscheduled Passenger Disembarkation.
#DeleteChrome
with a whole bunch of African Swallows?
-Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
He hasn't taken quality control seriously in any of his ventures, that is why they are all get-rich-quick schemes.
You want to back that up with... anything?
I think somebody said that over the past year or so.
While an important safety issue, it's good that it is identified and plans are in place to fix them before the Falcon is considered man-rated.
Excelsior!
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
they are all get-rich-quick schemes.
1. He was already rich.
2. If he wanted to get richER, then an aerospace company would have been about the worst possible way to do that. Historically, aerospace tends to make large fortunes into small fortunes rather than the other way around.
I am not a rocket scientist, and I do not play one on TV either. How does the turbine function in this rocket?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
On all F9 history only 1 engine have failed. And that rocket has 9 engines. The other 8 compensated and the primary objective was ok.
Also GAO does not find technical problems....
Spacex and Nasa found it, a long time ago.
GAO only predicts it can be a cause for delays beyond 2018.
Yet, it was man rated. So was Apollo 14-17. Apollo 1 burned up during a test. They were man rated, yet much less reliable than the Falcon 9. No rocket is perfect.
Humans may not be able to "take over" but accidents were reduced according to the NHTSA investigation. So... that would mean humans being able to take over aren't necessary.
That being said, there are plenty of videos online of humans taking over so you're claim is patently false. Maybe they can't take over while watching Harry Potter but that's not the intended use.
My understanding is that Space-X has not actually re-used any engines on a real flight to this point. They have only fired some of the returned ones on test pads. That means any cracks on a returned engine were from just one flight.
It's good engineering design to have it be able to survive a loss of an engine.
It's bad engineering design to have a known failure mode and not address it - especially if humans are going to be on board - even if the rocket can handle the loss.
A paper faggot? Interesting, normally they are made out of pre-processed wood. have any images?
Silence is a state of mime.
I don't think you understand that aerospace is a very, very risky way to become richer.
If your goal is simply to become richer, being a asshole, owning a bunch of real estate and stiffing the people who work for you is a much more surefire method.
No, I suggested that a current rocket, that is currently in use, uses a very reliable engine (and is currently routinely used to launch our critical defense infrastructure - more often that it's US made competitors right now) and will also be used to launch humans in the next couple of years.
Please address all complaints about the current status to your congressman...
2. If he wanted to get richER, then an aerospace company would have been about the worst possible way to do that.
Reminds me of the Richard Branson quote:
"If you want to be a Millionaire, start with a billion dollars and launch a new airline."