SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
One of SpaceX's new "Block 5" Merlin rocket engines has failed during a test:
On Sunday, one of SpaceX's rocket engines exploded during a test at the company's facility in McGregor, Texas — and now it's investigating what happened, The Washington Post reported [archive]. The mishap occurred during a "qualification test" of a Merlin engine meant to be used during a Falcon 9 launch in late 2018. SpaceX says that no one was injured during the event and that it shouldn't affect the company's launches moving forward.
"We are now conducting a thorough and fully transparent investigation of the root cause," SpaceX spokesperson John Taylor said in a statement to The Verge. "SpaceX is committed to our current manifest and we do not expect this to have any impact on our launch cadence."
[...] However, the explosion isn't expected to have too much of an impact, since the Merlin engine being tested was for the upcoming Block 5 configuration of the Falcon 9. The Block 5 is the final upgrade to the rocket that SpaceX has been developing this last year, which will supposedly have even higher thrust and improved landing abilities. Until that upgrade is finalized, though, SpaceX has been flying a transitional version of the Falcon 9 known as the Block 4.
Now, SpaceX plans to suspend all Block 5 engine testing at McGregor until the accident investigation is included[sic], though Block 4 engine testing will proceed. The company will also start repairing the test bay the engine exploded on, which should take two to four weeks to complete. SpaceX expects repairs to be done before the investigation is over, but just in case, the company has an additional test bay at McGregor it can use. However, that second test bay sustained some minor damage in the explosion, too, but repairs should only take two to three days before testing can resume.
Falcon 9 had already been upgraded to be able to fly some payloads that were originally intended to fly on Falcon Heavy. Each Block 5 first stage is intended to be flown ten times with only inspections in between, or up to 100 times with refurbishment. The Falcon 9 Full Thrust first stage has a thrust of 7,607 kN at sea level and 8,227 kN in vacuum, while the Block 5 first stage can reach a thrust of 8,451 kN (sea level/vacuum not specified).
Also at: Spaceflight Insider and Space.com.
(Score: 2) by ledow on Friday November 10 2017, @03:19PM (4 children)
However, it's a bold claim / complete lie to be able to re-use these devices 10 or even 100 times if they blow up while merely undergoing testing.
Progress and testing is good and expecting. Bold claims should come AFTER successful testing, though, not before.
(Score: 4, Informative) by linkdude64 on Friday November 10 2017, @04:52PM
I can appreciate the point made, but say all of the math points to them being able to be reused 100 times, and in this instance a fuel pump on the rocket that they got from a 3rd party had an o-ring that slipped out of place and boomed.
That really doesn't say anything about the fitness of the rocket system. It might just say that they need to increase QA at the pump factory, and test the pumps outside of the rockets next time. Obviously, the rockets would only be usable and reusable when something unpredictable doesn't happen - as with anything else.
"We guarantee this brand new car for 5 years or 100,000 miles"
"That's bullshit, this speciic car hasn't even been driven before"
"..."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 10 2017, @04:56PM
Sigh. The point of the testing is to figure out where things go wrong, and then fix them so they are able to meet the design goals.
If you honestly think SpaceX is planning to fly the exact same design that had a testing incident, then I have a lovely bridge to sell you.
(Score: 3, Informative) by choose another one on Friday November 10 2017, @04:58PM (1 child)
The claim is in the submission / summary, not in TFA, not clear exactly what the claim is from SpaceX, if there even is one.
If SpaceX claims that 10 uses without refurbishment is a design-goal then that is perfectly reasonable to claim that before testing, or even before build. Boeing (for just one example - every aircraft mfr does it) made plenty of claims about fuel burn, performance, gross weight, how long the batteries would last etc. for the 787, and in fact it sold plenty of them, before it had even built the first one let alone done any testing of it.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 10 2017, @05:20PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_Block_5 [wikipedia.org]
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/04/04/musk-previews-busy-year-ahead-for-spacex/ [spaceflightnow.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]