I looked at the video again and to me it appears that the failure occurs between the rocket and the support structure in the "hose" inter connects. It does not appear as though the detonation occurred within the rocket itself. The video seems to have been scrubbed/sanitized because all is ok then all is not ok. At 30+frames per second the video should allow for greater detail within a 1 second gap and I am not seeing it.
Bad seal? LOX has a nasty tendency to find things to ignite. Don't think they use pyro bolts on anything related to the fuel lines, but that would be an obvious source of ignition. I think they use magnets to hold those together so they pull off the rocket when it starts going up.
With the size of the initial fireball it looks like it had been leaking for a bit. Perhaps they changed pumping rate and knocked a pull away hose connect loose?
If they have instrumented all the lines with flow rates, pressure, temprature etc. I'm sure that data will show something interesting. More lines of code for an auto-abort for the next test.
I've discovered* a thing called fracto-emission which is the generation of sparks when a metal fractures. It is said to be unusual ( with cold metal ie. outside of foundries et al ). This represents energy released when the lattice is torn and consists of various energetic particles : electrons, photons, ions etc. Multiple freeze/thaw cycles could produce crystalline weaknesses declared/encouraged under pressure. Maybe the coupling components have gone out of tested specs with the fuel supercooling trick.
Cheers, Mike.
* Well, I never knew of it before.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
A bit more footage from the Veterans not previously included. I think there were more than a few tanks of various gases around the tower base eg. lots of expensive helium, which doesn't burn but is lost anyway.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
This video suggests that SpaceX had a systemic problem with their second stages. I would believe that if that were true SpaceX would have acknowledged this and fixed it at this point in their launch history. That is something that cannot be ignored and you would not fly with such a defect. While I can't say for certain I do feel that I can reject that critique offered in this video.
A vanity video. It's a shame he didn't call SpaceX in advance of the incident to warn them of the problem.
{ casuistry : the art of clever seeming but unsound reasoning }
The rebuttal is simple : what problem ( hinting at systemic implies consistency across cases ) occurs both inside of the rocket in one instance ( CRS-7 ) but outside in another ( Amos 6 ) ?
In any event he seems to have missed that the ignition was external with it's own flame front ( conflagration then likely traveled internally through the open valve during fueling ) which gave the slightly later second stage tank explosion ....
Also don't forget that with CRS-7 the tanks ruptured but no fire resulted .... so we don't have sufficiently comparable scenarios to claim systemic error.
Oh, and which part of first stage development did he think was without issue ?
Also his use of the lens flare hint is way too precise to give the intersection he quotes. At that object distance ( for reasonable lens choices ) the flare is far more a function of the camera optics ( specifically expressing diffraction symmetries within ) than the events. All you can safely say is that the peaks of the flaring, when crossed, lie outside of the craft.
Plus he thinks it was 60 frames per second, which would have given a supersonic shock front, but he claims it is subsonic. He also quotes the wrong height for the rocket as configured, but I'll stop now ..... :-)
No Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
@mike, he likely misspoke, 60 fields a second = 30 frames a second in NTSC. But I think it was Progressive at 30 frames. At the speed of the event, you would notice if it was Interlaced.
Quote:Yeah there's plenty of
)
My Take ?
I think the Falcon 9 rocket 'un-friended' Facebook's satellite (which was the payload.)
Bill
robl wrote:I looked at the
)
Bad seal? LOX has a nasty tendency to find things to ignite. Don't think they use pyro bolts on anything related to the fuel lines, but that would be an obvious source of ignition. I think they use magnets to hold those together so they pull off the rocket when it starts going up.
With the size of the initial fireball it looks like it had been leaking for a bit. Perhaps they changed pumping rate and knocked a pull away hose connect loose?
If they have instrumented all the lines with flow rates, pressure, temprature etc. I'm sure that data will show something interesting. More lines of code for an auto-abort for the next test.
Space X Rocket Explosion
)
Space X Rocket Explosion Details & Commentary - Scott Manley
Synchronises audio and makes a few observations.
I've discovered a thing
)
I've discovered* a thing called fracto-emission which is the generation of sparks when a metal fractures. It is said to be unusual ( with cold metal ie. outside of foundries et al ). This represents energy released when the lattice is torn and consists of various energetic particles : electrons, photons, ions etc. Multiple freeze/thaw cycles could produce crystalline weaknesses declared/encouraged under pressure. Maybe the coupling components have gone out of tested specs with the fuel supercooling trick.
Cheers, Mike.
* Well, I never knew of it before.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
There was an article on some
)
There was an article on some Brit news site claiming that the rocket was sabotaged
by a Drone. I didn't bother copying the link lol.
Bill
PS: I think it was the same site that had the article about
the UFO's filmed near the ISS )
Bill592 wrote:There was an
)
It's well known that the Illumifarti* have been suppressing this.
Cheers, Mike.
* They are able to harness the full power of that category of mental energy known as content-free ....
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
A bit more footage from the
)
A bit more footage from the Veterans not previously included. I think there were more than a few tanks of various gases around the tower base eg. lots of expensive helium, which doesn't burn but is lost anyway.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
AgentB wrote:Space X Rocket
)
This video suggests that SpaceX had a systemic problem with their second stages. I would believe that if that were true SpaceX would have acknowledged this and fixed it at this point in their launch history. That is something that cannot be ignored and you would not fly with such a defect. While I can't say for certain I do feel that I can reject that critique offered in this video.
It's a shame he didn't call
)
A vanity video. It's a shame he didn't call SpaceX in advance of the incident to warn them of the problem.
{ casuistry : the art of clever seeming but unsound reasoning }
The rebuttal is simple : what problem ( hinting at systemic implies consistency across cases ) occurs both inside of the rocket in one instance ( CRS-7 ) but outside in another ( Amos 6 ) ?
In any event he seems to have missed that the ignition was external with it's own flame front ( conflagration then likely traveled internally through the open valve during fueling ) which gave the slightly later second stage tank explosion ....
Also don't forget that with CRS-7 the tanks ruptured but no fire resulted .... so we don't have sufficiently comparable scenarios to claim systemic error.
Oh, and which part of first stage development did he think was without issue ?
Also his use of the lens flare hint is way too precise to give the intersection he quotes. At that object distance ( for reasonable lens choices ) the flare is far more a function of the camera optics ( specifically expressing diffraction symmetries within ) than the events. All you can safely say is that the peaks of the flaring, when crossed, lie outside of the craft.
Plus he thinks it was 60 frames per second, which would have given a supersonic shock front, but he claims it is subsonic. He also quotes the wrong height for the rocket as configured, but I'll stop now ..... :-)
No Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
@mike, he likely misspoke, 60
)
@mike, he likely misspoke, 60 fields a second = 30 frames a second in NTSC. But I think it was Progressive at 30 frames. At the speed of the event, you would notice if it was Interlaced.