Here is the LOXcam from CRS-4 as an example:Three COPVs visible, likely a fourth outside the camera's field of view. Trying to find footage from other flights, but my google-fu is weak today.
Quote from: R7 on 06/29/2015 06:21 pmQuote from: Kabloona on 06/29/2015 06:17 pmYou'd expect to see a structural failure like that at Max Q. This was much later than Max Q when structural loads were much lower.That's the intuitive version...I think we might safely dispense with Elon's "counter-intuitive" comment since it now seems they have no clear idea yet what happened.
Quote from: Kabloona on 06/29/2015 06:17 pmYou'd expect to see a structural failure like that at Max Q. This was much later than Max Q when structural loads were much lower.That's the intuitive version...
You'd expect to see a structural failure like that at Max Q. This was much later than Max Q when structural loads were much lower.
Now this camera was looking down on the tank from the region of the upper tank dome. The COPV's are mounted near the top of the tank. To determine if one ruptured, and that was the failure, I would recommend reviewing the zoomed in slow-mo gif's and comparing the region where we first see the tank walls fail, with where each COPV is mounted/ or best guess.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 06/29/2015 06:28 pmNow this camera was looking down on the tank from the region of the upper tank dome. The COPV's are mounted near the top of the tank. To determine if one ruptured, and that was the failure, I would recommend reviewing the zoomed in slow-mo gif's and comparing the region where we first see the tank walls fail, with where each COPV is mounted/ or best guess.Except the first signs of LOX cloud seem to come from the far side of the vehicle, so you can't see the source of the cloud.
As Jim says, range safety is the most important consideration in an event such as this. Besides, don't forget that the first stage landing ability is, so far, an unproven technology. In a catastrophic event like this, there is no room for speculation or experimentation. Vehicle fails, FTS should be used.
So unless the IDA detach was detected by dragon telemetry you would never see it.
This is how it works today. But I think when this incident is all over the more interesting question (and maybe deserving a public thread of its own) is whether it is time to re-write the rules on FTS generally.
I'm doubting the loose IDA theory because I think they would have seen unexpected vibrations and acceleration changes in the telemetry prior to catastrophic vehicle damage. If if was loose IDA they'd have figured that out by now.
NASA, SpaceX have released new # and e-mail for public to report any Falcon 9 debris: 866-392-0035 or [email protected]
I'm wondering if it's possible that the cargo in the Trunk may have broke loose and slammed into the upper tank.