SpaceX Tuesday...

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Beati Dogu

8,896 posts

140 months

Tuesday 6th September 2016
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Who deleted what post?
Mr Toaster

Toaster

2,939 posts

194 months

Tuesday 6th September 2016
quotequote all
Beati Dogu said:
Mr Toaster
I decided it wasn't worth making a comment............and it was very polite......so I deleted it

Toaster

2,939 posts

194 months

Tuesday 6th September 2016
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
As I said earlier, the "anomaly" is not the explosion. It's what CAUSED the explosion. They use the word "anomaly" at first because they don't understand what went wrong.



Now don't take it wrong but the definition of an anomaly "is something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected"

Therefore the explosion and destruction along with the root cause is an anomaly. Because the explosion is not a standard feature (although in rocketry history that can be debated) and whilst it wasn't normal or expected. (although its not that uncommon for a rocket to explode)

From my perspctive Scott Manley called his review Space X Rocket Explosion Details & Commentary which is good plan english description of what happened. Scott says in his opening dialogue:

"getting questions about the incident, anomaly, look it was an explosion, some people say it wasn't an explosion because it didn't detonate, but no that was an explosion"

I like the cut of this mans cloth he says how he sees it

Eric Mc

122,056 posts

266 months

Tuesday 6th September 2016
quotequote all
Beati Dogu said:
Eric Mc said:
Who deleted what post?
Mr Toaster
I see.

I'll leave him to it.

Sylvaforever

2,212 posts

99 months

Wednesday 7th September 2016
quotequote all
Oh.

MartG

20,694 posts

205 months

Wednesday 7th September 2016
quotequote all
In light of the pad damage at LC40, I wonder if SpaceX are now thinking they built that building too close to the pad - I suspect an 'anomaly' with a Falcon Heavy would flatten it !


Eric Mc

122,056 posts

266 months

Wednesday 7th September 2016
quotequote all
A big blast wall might protect it.

MartG

20,694 posts

205 months

Wednesday 7th September 2016
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
A big blast wall might protect it.
Difficult to design one to protect the building ( especially from the blast if a F-H detonated shortly after launch ) while still allowing access for launchers moving from the building to the pad

Beati Dogu

8,896 posts

140 months

Wednesday 7th September 2016
quotequote all
It's just an assembly shed really, to allow technicians to work on the rocket out of the weather. Simple enough to replace & the least of their problems if it did get flattened.

They estimated that a Saturn V pad explosion would go off with the power of 500-550 tons of TNT. About 4% the power of the atomic bomb that was used on Hiroshima. There's a reason these things are launched from remote sites and not allowed to overfly populated areas.

Eric Mc

122,056 posts

266 months

Wednesday 7th September 2016
quotequote all
The shed should have been on rollers - so they could drive it away to a safe location. They already have the road - courtesy of Apollo..

scubadude

2,618 posts

198 months

Wednesday 7th September 2016
quotequote all
Beati Dogu said:
It's just an assembly shed really, to allow technicians to work on the rocket out of the weather. Simple enough to replace & the least of their problems if it did get flattened.
No doubt Elon also has shares in a Shed Building company...

I just got around to watching the video- I was impressed how long the Payload remained at the top given the "excitement" going on beneath it!

Eric Mc

122,056 posts

266 months

Wednesday 7th September 2016
quotequote all
It was dangling from the "Strongback" by its umbilical lines.

Beati Dogu

8,896 posts

140 months

Wednesday 7th September 2016
quotequote all
Some long range photos of the pad:

https://imgur.com/a/se8bK

Elon's shed looks OK.

One of the lightening towers got a bit toasty as you can see, It'll probably need to be replaced. They were there already before SpaceX took over.

Here's an tour of the pad by Elon, when they were first modifying it to their needs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUmnzaDGifo

MartG

20,694 posts

205 months

Thursday 8th September 2016
quotequote all
Difficult to tell how close those buildings are to the pad, given the perspective flattening effect of a long lens.

I guess there are no 'civilian' aerial pics of the damage due to it being an active USAF base, so we'll have to wait until after they've completed any forensic investigation of the pad before we see any close up pics

Beati Dogu

8,896 posts

140 months

Thursday 8th September 2016
quotequote all
Yes, I don't think the Air Force would take too kindly to an overflight. The place is huge as well, so a drone would likely be out of radio control range before they got anywhere interesting anyway. There'll probably be a satellite photo out before long.

You can measure distances with the Google Maps tool. Elon's shed (the Horizontal Integration Facility) is about 500 ft from the launch point. There are some storage & maintenance sheds closer than that though.

Flooble

5,565 posts

101 months

Thursday 8th September 2016
quotequote all
Beati Dogu said:
Yes, I don't think the Air Force would take too kindly to an overflight. The place is huge as well, so a drone would likely be out of radio control range before they got anywhere interesting anyway. There'll probably be a satellite photo out before long.

You can measure distances with the Google Maps tool. Elon's shed (the Horizontal Integration Facility) is about 500 ft from the launch point. There are some storage & maintenance sheds closer than that though.
Hmm, I seem to recall flying over there. Flew down the shuttle runway at 500 feet or so (can't remember exactly, but do remember carefully confirming the clearance as it was so low).

It's restricted airspace, but you can request a clearance.

Eric Mc

122,056 posts

266 months

Thursday 8th September 2016
quotequote all
The Shuttle runway is part of the civilian Kennedy Space Center. Apart from Pads 39A and B (the old Apollo and Shuttle pads), all the rest of the facilities at Cape Canaveral is owned and operated by the USAF.

MartG

20,694 posts

205 months

Saturday 10th September 2016
quotequote all
A ( not particularly well written ) article on the incident

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/spacex-rock...

MartG

20,694 posts

205 months

Saturday 10th September 2016
quotequote all
New pics of the pad




MartG

20,694 posts

205 months

Saturday 10th September 2016
quotequote all
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED