Did you watch the video on that post? It shows exactly that. There is a fireball and rise of pressure but usually (for the static fire or pad abort case) the pressure is redirected by the fairing but does not require a safety release. At Max-Q the loads are different and the response is different. It's still working as designed.
I would guess that it is an integral part of rocket engine design to ensure that they fail in a progressive and controlled fashion, to the extent possible. Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features? This incident demonstrates the sturdiness engineered into the rockets of SpaceX. Don't think the story is much longer...
Quote from: Oersted on 10/08/2012 08:53 pmI would guess that it is an integral part of rocket engine design to ensure that they fail in a progressive and controlled fashion, to the extent possible. Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features? This incident demonstrates the sturdiness engineered into the rockets of SpaceX. Don't think the story is much longer...Bad engineering. Cars are going to have many accidents but not rockets
Folks haven't mentioned this AFAICT, but it's worth noting that the Orbcomm "silence" may in fact be Orbcomm's fault/decision, not SpaceX's. SpaceX has been very forthcoming about their part of the flight, but they may well have contractual obligations (or just a need to have releases vetted by Orbcomm executives) which prevent them from speaking as freely about the Orbcomm-related aspects of the flight. Folks here have noted that Orbcomm was in a information blackhole even before the flight, with SpaceX's preflight materials not mentioning the Orbcomm satellite.Putting on my wild guessing hat, I'd suspect that the Orbcomm delivery was not in fact "nominal" but fell squarely under the terms of service SpaceX was contracted to provide. Secondary payloads get best-effort delivery, and off-nominal orbit insertion is one of the most likely results. Orbcomm may or may not have chosen to cover for that possibility with thrust resources on its own satellite (at the expense of a shorter lifetime in-orbit), but that was its own choice.Orbcomm will need to spin this even more than SpaceX, though. It knew this was a likely outcome of flying as a secondary payload but the wordsmiths are going to be very busy crafting a press release which all of SpaceX, Orbcomm, Orbcomm's executive which approved flying as a secondary payload, Orbcomm's insurance, and Orbcomm's investors are satisfied with.
Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features?
I'm trying to let this thread flow as freely as possible, as there are going to be a lot of differing opinions on this. I have removed a few rude posts.Don't quote or respond to uncivil posts, report them and a moderator will remove the offending post (if it is a breach of rules).I'll write a new article on this when we have enough info to hand. I'm working on that in L2.
Should we start a new thread full of apologies for those who guaranteed there was an explosion? Or just sweep that under the rug?
the 2nd stage ran to low on fuel for what ever reason and the orbit is now in an elleptical orbit to low and the average is even with the space station. It will decay soon and plumet back to earth. The powers that be are going to try to use the remaining fuel to steer it into a more circular orbit which might get it to last a few months. I actually have a large triplexer aboard. Interesting to hear from both sides as to what is going on.
Folks haven't mentioned this AFAICT, but it's worth noting that the Orbcomm "silence" may in fact be Orbcomm's fault/decision, not SpaceX's. SpaceX has been very forthcoming about their part of the flight, but they may well have contractual obligations (or just a need to have releases vetted by Orbcomm executives) which prevent them from speaking as freely about the Orbcomm-related aspects of the flight. Folks here have noted that Orbcomm was in a information blackhole even before the flight, with SpaceX's preflight materials not mentioning the Orbcomm satellite.Putting on my wild guessing hat, I'd suspect that the Orbcomm delivery was not in fact "nominal" but fell squarely under the terms of service SpaceX was contracted to provide. Secondary payloads get best-effort delivery, and off-nominal orbit insertion is one of the most likely results. Orbcomm may or may not have chosen to cover for that possibility with thrust resources on its own satellite (at the expense of a shorter lifetime in-orbit), but that was its own choice.
Quote from: Jim on 10/08/2012 08:55 pmQuote from: Oersted on 10/08/2012 08:53 pmI would guess that it is an integral part of rocket engine design to ensure that they fail in a progressive and controlled fashion, to the extent possible. Cars have had buckle zones for a couple of decades now, so why would rocket engines not have similar design features? This incident demonstrates the sturdiness engineered into the rockets of SpaceX. Don't think the story is much longer...Bad engineering. Cars are going to have many accidents but not rocketsThat's because cars are designed to be reusable.
I'm not a big fan of letting people forget how absurd they come across when they assert speculation masked as fact.
