Do you have concrete data to back this up or are you just speculating?
Other aerodynamic breakup failures I've seen have suffered self-destructs because the strapons (and large fairings) were ripped off the stack, but at greater AoA than seen here. The first stage is the last to give in - see Delta II 1986, Ariane V 1996, Titan IV 1998. In case of Delta II the SRBs actually clinged on to the stage until RSO action.
KSLV-1 doesn't have strapons, it's a small vehicle with a small fairing and Russians typically build overly rugged stages. I don't really find it surprising it *didn't* break up at that point. I am left wondering if something like that would be healthy for the fairing, but am *not* drawing conclusions that's the root cause of fairing failure.
Quote from: pm1823 on 08/28/2009 08:40 pmIMO, optic trick.That would be an... interesting optic trick.FWIW, here's stabilized footage of the two different cameras.
IMO, optic trick.
Who said 'breakup'?! AVD/CBN system stops engines before any breakup will be possible.
Don't you ever hear on Atlas launch: "begin zero AOA flight"? And what do you think will be with Atlas if it failed to keep zero AOA? Breakup? No.
Two factors make me believe that this alleged pitch maneuver is an artifact:a) the camera logos move along with the rocket as it "pitches"
A "fairing" loss (actually two separable tapered guidance and nose cone sections that don't split)) can be seen on YouTube videos of Jupiter AM-23 9-16-1959 which shows the sections coming off during major pitch/yaw moves. Admittedly this was at a lower altitude - just after liftoff. Sorry I can't do linkings at this moment.
Don't you think this would fall into the LV-specific behavior? Why do you think Soyuz behavior would map to KSLV-1 behavior, which is an unmanned rocket? Who made the avionics and its software?I have absolutely no clue what would happen to Atlas in case AoA deviated by a few degrees (and it does fly alpha-bias trajectories), but am willing to bet nothing catastrophic would happen, at least to the no-SRB versions and that the RD-180 engine would not get shutdown deliberately. Why would it? If there was an EDS a crew onboard, then yes, such a condition would be cause for abort. Otherwise, for an unmanned launch why kill your mission merely on grounds of AoA exceeding limits if there's a chance it'll recover with no ill effects?
Who made the avionics and its software?
But, it's not about behavior it's all about control. Critical values and rates are predefined for each LV. When one go red is no sense in continuing uncontrolled flight.
Ask Japanese, Filipino, Aussie, what they thinking about uncontrolled power flight of Korean missiles.
'Red button' is just for customer fun, gives people false feeling of control.
Quote from: pm1823 on 08/31/2009 07:56 pm'Red button' is just for customer fun, gives people false feeling of control. I'm sure range safety officers would disagree with you on that one.
I have played back the video several times and I can see some thing dropped from KSLV at about 01:05. Is there any possibility that a part of fairing has been damaged during highQ?
Quote from: spacepark on 09/01/2009 08:56 amI have played back the video several times and I can see some thing dropped from KSLV at about 01:05. Is there any possibility that a part of fairing has been damaged during highQ?That's a puff of condensation, a precursor to a much longer contrail to appear several seconds later.