-
#300
by
MarsInMyLifetime
on 25 Jan, 2011 03:27
-
Then in the next frame, you see that it dissipates as the breeze moves the momentary smoke tornado past the tank. Shhh, this is how Mars conspiracists manage to see glass tubes where everyone one else sees sand dunes.
-
#301
by
sdsds
on 25 Jan, 2011 04:55
-
All the combustion that occurs while the vehicle is still essentially on the pad is quite dramatic, but that really is more or less what was seen during previous launches. On the other hand, check out image 38 in the set. The vehicle is well clear of the towers, thus well clear of the GH2 which has in any case long since been consumed, and yet the bird nest (or whatever) near the inter-tank is still visibly aflame.
http://www.wghartenstein.com/Aerospace/First-Delta-4-Heavy-Launch/15560785_FrmPq#1165906126_eeMrv-L-LBI wonder what it would take (in the way of public outcry or perhaps a Congressional expression of concern) to get USAF/ULA to make some sort of statement about this?
-
#302
by
kevin-rf
on 25 Jan, 2011 12:54
-
I wonder what it would take (in the way of public outcry or perhaps a Congressional expression of concern) to get USAF/ULA to make some sort of statement about this?
Why do they? Unless the soot penetrated to the payload and damaged it, I don't see a need.
If ULA needs to explain this, SpaceX needs to fully and properly explain the Falcon-9 Flight Two fireball.
-
#303
by
kirghizstan
on 25 Jan, 2011 12:58
-
my only question is, if they were to manrate the DIVH would this tank burning need to be resolved prior?
-
#304
by
Nate_Trost
on 25 Jan, 2011 13:19
-
Well, if you're going to make the naughty astronauts ride on the outside of the spacecraft...
-
#305
by
Nick L.
on 25 Jan, 2011 13:44
-
my only question is, if they were to manrate the DIVH would this tank burning need to be resolved prior?
The man-rating mods would reduce/eliminate the fireball altogether.
-
#306
by
Thorny
on 25 Jan, 2011 14:03
-
my only question is, if they were to manrate the DIVH would this tank burning need to be resolved prior?
At the very least, they'll have to make sure the TV news announcers make it clear "There will be a big fireball that engulfs the vehicle, don't panic!" or they'll have hundreds of TV viewers keeling over with heart attacks.
-
#307
by
Mighty-T
on 25 Jan, 2011 14:15
-
The fireball has been expected - c.f. the mission patch!
-
#308
by
kirghizstan
on 25 Jan, 2011 14:30
-
The fireball has been expected - c.f. the mission patch!
nice pic
Let me be more clear, is there anything in the manrating rules that would make this type of tank burn something that would have to be addressed/corrected?
-
#309
by
mr. mark
on 25 Jan, 2011 14:47
-
The public and orbital tourists will look at it this way, Look at the Taurus 2, Falcon 9 and Atlas launchers, they are not on fire. Why should I launch on a rocket that's on fire. It really is that simple. Look at the way people or companies choose the airlines that they fly. We are entering a whole new age when companies and tourists will more than ever fly into space. They will insist on the cleaner option. In business the consumer is always right.
-
#310
by
Downix
on 25 Jan, 2011 14:49
-
The fireball has been expected - c.f. the mission patch!
nice pic
Let me be more clear, is there anything in the manrating rules that would make this type of tank burn something that would have to be addressed/corrected?
In ULA's man rating doc it is listed as a preferred modification if the existing EELV pads are used. If LC-39 is chosen instead, the issue is already addressed.
-
#311
by
Robotbeat
on 25 Jan, 2011 14:59
-
The fireball is expected, the extent of burning after the fireball probably wasn't. It's not a good thing to have that much burning of the outside of your rocket. This is worse than the SpaceX fireball on Falcon 9 flight 2, from the looks of it.
Still, there's no reason for ULA to issue a public statement. The payload reached its intended orbit, from what we can tell. I expect ULA is going to address it for future launches from the West coast.
-
#312
by
Antares
on 25 Jan, 2011 16:08
-
It's only normalization of deviance if objective data is showing something and the acceptable limits and family of data is expanded. If there's no objective data showing something changing on the rocket as a result of the external combustion, no deviance is being made normal - photonic/video evidence notwithstanding. This is different from blowby and foam damage.
-
#313
by
edkyle99
on 25 Jan, 2011 16:09
-
Can we start a "fireball" thread for people to discuss "fireballs" after every Delta 4 Heavy launch?
- Ed Kyle
-
#314
by
kevin-rf
on 25 Jan, 2011 17:15
-
Can we start a "fireball" thread for people to discuss "fireballs" after every Delta 4 Heavy launch?
- Ed Kyle
Only if you include Falcon 9's
-
#315
by
mr. mark
on 25 Jan, 2011 17:24
-
Last time I checked, no Falcon 9's have been on fire, insulation or otherwise. The only fire which you refer to was a fuel hose valve that did not shut off properly and thus caught fire. That is not part of the rocket itself, just to clarify. And yes, I do know when I am being baited, I just couldn't help myself.
-
#316
by
Robotbeat
on 25 Jan, 2011 17:38
-
It's only normalization of deviance if objective data is showing something and the acceptable limits and family of data is expanded. If there's no objective data showing something changing on the rocket as a result of the external combustion, no deviance is being made normal - photonic/video evidence notwithstanding. This is different from blowby and foam damage.
On the other hand, what is the objective evidence that something isn't changing on the rocket as a result of the external combustion? Clearly we can see there's a chemical change to parts of the rocket. Conservation of mass says that something that was on the rocket has now turned to smoke. Is the rocket really engineered to burn, or is this coming out of the factor-of-safety?
These are questions that I am confident that ULA can answer themselves. They have an excellent launch record which they will definitely want to maintain, especially for big missions like this. It will be addressed.
-
#317
by
ugordan
on 25 Jan, 2011 17:51
-
Conservation of mass says that something that was on the rocket has now turned to smoke.
Think of it as Delta's OMS assist burn...
-
#318
by
Antares
on 25 Jan, 2011 17:55
-
On the other hand, what is the objective evidence that something isn't changing on the rocket as a result of the external combustion?
If there is objective evidence, it would be eye-tar restricted and unavailable to an internet forum.
-
#319
by
rjholling
on 25 Jan, 2011 23:19
-
