Jump to content

Blue Origin Thread (merged)


Recommended Posts

Define "explode," then.

Technically speaking, it would have been a conflagration. An explosion is when a mixture of gases spontaneously combusts. But yeah, that's pure semantics here. For all intends and purposes, it was completely torn to pieces.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Via nasaspaceflight.com:

"The research payloads that were onboard the CRS-7 included a JAXA experiment to investigate combustion in microgravity; a high resolution Earth-facing camera to watch for meteors entering the atmosphere in an attempt to study their compositions; Veg-03, a cabbage growth experiment; a bioscience investigation to study the effects of spaceflight on telomeres in the crew’s DNA and an array of student experiments.

All were lost, despite the Dragon falling clear of the failing Falcon 9. However, she was not designed to recover from such an incident and was lost when she impacted the water."

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/06/falcon-9-crs-7-dragon-commute-orbit/

Quick, someone get Tiberon. I want to see his face.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, that took over two hours. Seriously slow.

You want to see my face when I read that a guy that wrote an article for NSF said the same thing you guys did, with no additional citations from an official source or any video or photo evidence.

"Putting quotes around things, while proper when quoting what was written in an article, does not make it any more official." - Tiberion, June 28th, 2015, KSP forums, Science Labs section.

Mostly my face was bored, though I did roll my eyes a little bit. You know, two hours ago when he posted that. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Technically speaking, it would have been a conflagration. An explosion is when a mixture of gases spontaneously combusts. But yeah, that's pure semantics here. For all intends and purposes, it was completely torn to pieces.

Technically, a conflagration is also a spontaneous combustion. The difference between that and an explosion (or, perhaps more precisely, a detonation), is that in a conflagration the "burn front" moves slower than the speed of sound -- in a detonation, it's supersonic. But this is just pointless nomenclature.

I do agree that the initial anomaly doesn't look like an explosion. It's almost as if the second stage is venting gas while mantaining structural integrity (after a non-explosive tank failure, perhaps). The first stage seems to remain stable during this time. It's only by the end that we see the second stage exploding, followed shortly after by the first stage doing the same, and then bits and pieces.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Technically, a conflagration is also a spontaneous combustion. The difference between that and an explosion (or, perhaps more precisely, a detonation), is that in a conflagration the "burn front" moves slower than the speed of sound -- in a detonation, it's supersonic.

Detonation, sure. And that and conflagration involves combustion, of course. But "explosion" is not really defined in physical chemistry as such. Even detonation does not have to be explosive. There are experimental solid boosters that work via detonation. That's why I asked to define "explosion". Depending on context, any violent disintegration seems to qualify.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a life, away from the computer, sue me.

And I'll take the word of NSF over some random forum poster any day.

You know what, forget it. YOU guys make an assertion about it surviving, I disagreed and stated that there is no evidence or official statement to back your claim. You don't care, which is your right.

It matters not one iota in the end, so I'm done wasting time on the matter, please don't waste yours addressing me about it further either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Detonation, sure. And that and conflagration involves combustion, of course. But "explosion" is not really defined in physical chemistry as such. Even detonation does not have to be explosive. There are experimental solid boosters that work via detonation. That's why I asked to define "explosion". Depending on context, any violent disintegration seems to qualify.

Yeah, "explosion" is not really a precise scientific term, and could mean both of the above (or none).

But anyway, I was trying to point out that the start of the anomaly does not look very "explosive". The first stage remains stably lit and doesn't noticeably change orientation, so it looks like the upper stage didn't lose structural integrity immediately. Perhaps a valve or feed line ruptured and was venting LOX for some time (a few seconds) before the tank really failed, "explosively" this time.

Edit: and by the way, it's likely that the final explosions were triggered by the Flight Termination System after the onboard computer(s) determined the rocket had gone past acceptable limits.

Edited by Meithan
Link to post
Share on other sites

The incident happening between max Q and max G ( just prior to main engine cut off, where the TWR is highest) and a record breakingly (for this booster, at least) heavy payload in an open trunk, both impy to me that it was a payload issue that killed the second stage booster. Strictly theoretically, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched at one of the causeways. I got lots of pics. And one of the explosion. Will post when I get them on my computer.

- - - Updated - - -

The incident happening between max Q and max G ( just prior to main engine cut off, where the TWR is highest) and a record breakingly (for this booster, at least) heavy payload in an open trunk, both impy to me that it was a payload issue that killed the second stage booster. Strictly theoretically, of course.

I thought that it occurred at max q. I think it was a pressure issue, a problem with the second stage engine fairings being under too much pressure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The incident happening between max Q and max G ( just prior to main engine cut off, where the TWR is highest) and a record breakingly (for this booster, at least) heavy payload in an open trunk, both impy to me that it was a payload issue that killed the second stage booster. Strictly theoretically, of course.

This was not the heaviest payload they've had in the trunk of a CRS mission.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone please tell me what one of the flight controllers said...

At around 2 minutes 5 seconds after liftoff, you hear "...the _________ has begun..."

What is that phrase/word? Thanks!

In my ears, it sounded like, "...the vat chill has begun..."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can someone please tell me what one of the flight controllers said...

At around 2 minutes 5 seconds after liftoff, you hear "...the _________ has begun..."

What is that phrase/word? Thanks!

In my ears, it sounded like, "...the vat chill has begun..."

M-Vac, short for Merlin-Vacuum, the 2nd stage engine of the Falcon 9, they basically cool everything off before it begins running since its a cyrogenic engine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
M-Vac, short for Merlin-Vacuum, the 2nd stage engine of the Falcon 9, they basically cool everything off before it begins running since its a cyrogenic engine.

RP-1 (Kerosene)/liquid oxygen rocket engines are usually referred to as "semi-cryogenic," because they aren't as cold as liquid hydrogen/oxygen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we talking about hot air here ? People, grab FAR & RSS, get the telemetry and reproduce it.

I can accept an opinion that dragon must be stuck bavk on top of rocket (it's not that drag-y so must be no steering, mind you don't have those powerful SAS IRL), but I won't be accepting that as the only truth - I'll wait for a full assessment of telemetry and such. Same for final explosion - though I believe more in range safety, could've been a bad effect by shrapnel as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
RP-1 (Kerosene)/liquid oxygen rocket engines are usually referred to as "semi-cryogenic," because they aren't as cold as liquid hydrogen/oxygen.

So can it be a theory, that the MVAC Chill initiation had anything to do with the overpressure? Somehow this naggingly reminds me of...

"13, we've got one more item for you, when you get a chance. We'd like you to stir up the cryo tanks."

- Jack Lousma

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I hate about this is it means that Boeing/ULA now gets to mention this every time they compete on a contract with SpaceX. SpaceX just got approval to bid on air force payloads for half cost or whatever it is that ULA actually charges. (one thing SpaceX complained about in their lawsuit is that ULA gets a billion bucks a year for doing nothing and they don't have to count it against their per launch costs)

Realistically, obviously SpaceX will fix the issue and future launches will make it. They'll probably even get the barge landing working.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SpaceX hoodwinked a lot of people with their sales pitch, but this is just Faster, Better, Cheaper (pick any two) all over again. They're kidding themselves by talking about Mars when they can't get LEO done reliably.

Words cannot describe how disgusted I am at this sort farcical thing happening 60 years into the so called space age. Progress, Cygnus and Dragon down, ATV and Shuttle retired. Just abandon the ISS already and start over when we're serious about doing space properly!

Addendum, but hey it's ok, the human race can just play Kerbal Space Program, it's the same thing really - rockets blowing up is funny, no really, we should be laughing: MOAR BOOSTES, right?

Edited by DunaRocketeer
Link to post
Share on other sites
SpaceX hoodwinked a lot of people with their sales pitch, but this is just Faster, Better, Cheaper (pick any two) all over again. They're kidding themselves by talking about Mars when they can't get LEO done reliably.

Words cannot describe how disgusted I am at this sort farcical thing happening 60 years into the so called space age. Progress, Cygnus and Dragon down, ATV and Shuttle retired. Just abandon the ISS already and start over when we're serious about doing space properly!

There was a car crash the other day! Let's use horses from now on, since clearly we are not ready for internal combustion engines!

Rune. Getting over the last 5% in reliability is hard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a car crash the other day! Let's use horses from now on, since clearly we are not ready for internal combustion engines!

Rune. Getting over the last 5% in reliability is hard.

Blind optimism and flawed analogies. That's what we've been reduced to. But we've got really good smart phones and flatscreen TV's so we should be thankful that, eh? The human race is investing in the wrrong things for its future survival. The last 5% IS NOT THAT HARD

Link to post
Share on other sites
Blind optimism and flawed analogies. That's what we've been reduced to. But we've got really good smart phones and flatscreen TV's so we should be thankful that, eh? The human race is investing in the wrrong things for its future survival. The last 5% IS NOT THAT HARD

But it is! It takes thousands of units produced to achieve gain enough statistical knowledge of failure modes to get those last percentages, especially when you work with such razor-thin margins. Guess how many phones failed before you had your first iPhone, if you want me to use that analogy instead. It's the sad fact that every rocket is a huge building-sized mass of fine aerospace-grade materials, and a phone is a few grams of not-so-complicated circuitry... so you can build thousands of phones for the same price as a single rocket.

Also, I will point out that I am neither optimist, nor blind. In fact, it is you the one that seems to expect unrealistic things out of space programs here. Launch failures happen, just like there is a percentage of airplanes that never finish their service lives, or a few hundred phones that get sent back to the factory for manufacturing defects out of every million (asspulling numbers there at the end, but I once had to buy the same memory stick three times).

Rune. The timing, tough, is a bit awful tough. Bad luck comes in threes, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...