NASA is really having a bad year. The Boeing was not up to the task, and the launch of the manned spacecraft encountered many problems. After finally reaching the space station, the two astronauts could not come back! People in the International Space Station also need to eat. You must know that the meals in the space station are calculated per person. Now that there are two more people for no reason, the food reserves of the International Space Station must be insufficient.
To make matters worse, the cargo spacecraft was about to deliver the goods ahead of schedule, but encountered an accident halfway through, and both ignitions ended in failure. Logically speaking, the cargo spacecraft of the International Space Station is still very reliable. Why did it fail this time? What exactly is the problem?
"Falcon 9" is a reusable rocket. The reusable here refers to the first-stage booster. It is reported that this booster has been used ten times. Logically, there should be no problems.
The International Space Station is located in the Earth's low-Earth orbit. If the Falcon 9 wants to reach the space station, it must first undergo a trajectory change, that is, it must first reach an altitude of 414km x 422km.
國際空間站位于地球的低地球軌道。如果獵鷹9號想要到達(dá)空間站,必須首先進(jìn)行軌道變化,也就是說,它必須首先達(dá)到414公里 x 422公里的高度。
0
This kind of trajectory change was originally not difficult at all, but no one expected that after two ignitions and two failures, the Falcon 9 missed the best time for docking.
There is now specific information on the Internet about the two failed orbit changes. The first one was a "man-made disaster" and the cargo spacecraft missed the docking time, so it can only wait until the next time.
The next time, the cargo spacecraft's thrusters failed to ignite due to insufficient pressure.
第二次,由于壓力不足,貨運飛船的推進(jìn)器未能點燃。
0
Although the cargo spacecraft failed, it did not affect its continued delivery, it just arrived a little later than the scheduled time.
盡管貨運飛船失敗了,但這并沒有影響其繼續(xù)運送,只是比預(yù)定時間晚到了一些。
0
It is said that there has never been any problem with cargo spacecraft delivering goods in the past, so why did something go wrong this time?
話說貨運飛船以往送貨從來沒有出過問題,那么這一次為什么會出問題呢?
0
In recent years, NASA's space missions have had some problems to a greater or lesser extent. One problem can be explained as bad luck, but several problems in a row indicate that there are problems within the space project!
For example, the problems that occurred with the cargo spacecraft this time could have been completely avoided.
例如,這次貨運飛船出現(xiàn)的問題本可以完全避免。
0
Although it will eventually arrive at the International Space Station, the astronauts on the International Space Station cannot wait. After all, there are two more people on board and the food is no longer enough.
After all, it was NASA that supported Boeing in developing manned spacecraft, and before the "Starliner" was built, Musk's "Dragon Spacecraft" was responsible for transportation.
After the "Starliner" malfunctioned, the two astronauts tried to find the problem and fix it. However, after so many days, the progress of the two was very slow, even to the point of being "starved to death."
As a last resort, Boeing built an identical scene on Earth in order to find out the problem as quickly as possible.
迫不得已之下,波音在地球上構(gòu)建了一個一模一樣的場景,為的就是盡快找出問題所在。
0
There were seven people on the International Space Station before, and the food on board was enough for seven people to eat for three months. Now there are two more people, so the food is only enough for two months and ten days.
It is precisely because of this that the cargo spacecraft was launched in a hurry. Otherwise, in the next few days, not only would the two astronauts have no food, but the remaining seven astronauts would also starve.
In the past decade, the space industry in Europe and the United States has developed slowly, and it can be said that there has been almost no progress.
近十年來,歐美航天事業(yè)發(fā)展速度緩慢,幾乎可以說沒有任何的進(jìn)步。
0
ESA has always been dependent on the United States. In recent years, they have also been vigorously developing their own rockets. Not long ago, the "Ariane VI" rocket was partially successfully launched, which made ESA proud.
But at this stage, Europe is not capable of exploring the moon and Mars on its own, so it will need to cooperate with the United States. But the United States is also in trouble. NASA's space program is complex and expensive. On the one hand, their technical strength is insufficient and they cannot complete such a complex task. On the other hand, the United States is short of money and Congress does not have that much money to invest in NASA.
In general, SpaceX's technology is stronger than Boeing's, but judging from the fact that NASA insisted on using Boeing, it is obvious that they do not want Musk to dominate the market. I guess there are unknown political reasons behind this!
At the beginning of this year, two US lunar exploration satellites encountered problems one after another, and the "Artemis" program also encountered twists and turns.
今年年初,兩顆美國月球探測衛(wèi)星相繼遇到問題,“阿爾忒彌斯”計劃也遇到了波折。
0
Boeing's "Starliner" and Orbital Sciences Corporation's "Cygnus Cargo Spacecraft" have both experienced malfunctions. In fact, they have one thing in common, that is, commercial aerospace companies are involved.
Boeing's "Starliner" was not powerful enough, so Musk's "Dragon Spacecraft" had to take action. However, because things happened too suddenly, it took time for the "Dragon Spacecraft" to be launched.
What's more, NASA has also put forward new requirements for the internal structure of the spacecraft. The original "Dragon spacecraft" had seven seats, and NASA required it to be changed to four seats.
The reason given was that the sitting posture for seven people was incorrect and landing would damage the astronauts' spine. Logically speaking, if there was no problem for seven people to come back on the Dragon spacecraft, there should be no problem for two people as well.
It doesn't make sense that it's okay with more people but not with fewer people. I have to say that NASA's request is a bit strange. The most important thing is that it takes time to transform the spacecraft. The two astronauts on the International Space Station are probably not in danger of their lives for the time being, so NASA is not in a hurry.
Americans are inefficient and expensive at work. Not only are labor costs high, but prices are also particularly high. A moon landing project costs tens of billions of dollars.
美國人工作效率又低,價格又貴,不僅人力成本貴,就連物價也特別貴,一個登月項目要花好幾百億美元。
0
It has to be said that the U.S. space industry is really expensive. In fact, the U.S. not only spends a lot on aerospace, but also spends a lot on all walks of life. With such an atmosphere and such prices, it is no wonder that the U.S. industry has become hollowed out.